Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[staysharp]

only somethings. I would haveto question you undertanding about the issues with Catholic doctrine and how much total nonsense they have in which is totaly not supported or even hinted to by scripture. Eastern Orthodox would be much closer than the Catholic church even though still off as they resisted much of the unification of government and church in the 3rd and 4th centuries etc...

I never said I agreed with it, I did say they have their reasons and can logically explain their position from a scholarly viewpoint. While I don't believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is one they explain clearly according to the original Greek. They take these literally and not figuratively.

[Aquila]

Many teachings we understand today are through "non canonical" books. Does it mean they are not true? No! Several things we understand are through those other writings. Because they are considered "oral law" does not mean parts are any less inspired. I am not a person for "others" deciding which books are correct and not. Mosth ave little understnading on howthe oral law worked and much of the teachings of Jesus coincided with them.

The point is mikveh as most understand it is nothing but a Jewish tradition that began at about the time of Ezra. It's not "biblical". It's one of those traditions of men that were taught as doctrines in Christ's day.

[Aquila]

a couple of thoughts,

I've posted some videos of Orthodox (who should know the meaning of the word) baptisms. They didn't meticulously submerge completely.

I've posted how I was willing to go and baptize (sprinkle or pour a little water) on the head of a person on her deathbed and the relief I felt when I didn't have to because the family had made other arrangements.

Some years back I read about an incident in the life of the late L.R. Parent. After he "saw" baptism in Jesus' name, he stuck his hand into some water in Jesus' name and asked the Lord to accept that for his baptism until he could find someone to immerse him. Anybody reckon the late Bishop Parent would have gone to hell if he died before his immersion?

A few years ago, Pastor Tommy Barnett was walking cross country to obtain money (I think for the LA Dream Center). On the way he witnessed to a man and the man committed hid life to Jesus. They were in the desert somewhere and before they parted ways, Pastor Barnett baptized him using a bottle of Evian water. I doubt if they climbed down into that bottle for a full immersion. What think ye of that "baptism"? A while back I heard of a preacher who said the Ethiopian pointed to a jug of water and requested baptism so Philip poured some of it over him. The late Brother Roosevelt York said he would only believe that if you could show him how they both got down into that jug of water (ref Acts 8:38)

Sam, let me run something by you, please share your thoughts. Considering the sick... the Bible says something interesting...

James 5:14-15
14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

If one were on their deathbed calling on prayer from you, an Apostolic minister, does this promise extend to them? Could you administer the forgiveness of sins to someone by anointing them with oil - in Jesus' name - and praying the prayer of faith with them?

Just a question I've had bounce around in my tinny weeny brain from time to time. What are your thoughts?

[Aquila]

Dunno Aquila..I assume you do? I'll let you fill me on the details of it with an answer to my question.

Okay...

Aquila: How do you feel about the laws regarding the Jewish Mikvah.

As I understand them, one muist be entirely under the water to be washed.

First off, I'd like to point out... they are not "laws", they are Jewish traditions.

Customs relating to the mikveh began around the time of Ezra and are part of the traditions of men.

Also, it should be noted that there are many different forms of mikveh. One is for converts and was meticulously observed by having the candidate completely naked, cleaned, and untouched while being immersed, etc. This conversion ritual is extra-biblical and isn't found in the OT. And you might be amazed... but the ceremonial washings of the priests in the OT are regarded by rabbinical writers as being forms of mikveh. The problem you might have with these washings is that they were performed by pouring and sprinkling not complete immersion. Essentially the Jews built the tradition of full immersion mikveh around these ceremonial washings performed by sprinkling and pouring. Please note, even the washing of hands before a meal was a form of mikveh. Therefore, mikveh in and of itself never required immersion in every case.

Care is taken that even ornaments of jewelry are removed and finger nails are cleaned to assure that the muikvah waters completly covers the person recieving mikvah.

Yes, but again, that's not in the Bible. That is a Jewish tradition.

Even the attending priests/rabbi does not touch the person as they immerse themselves in the mikvah.

Yes, but that's not in the Bible. That is a Jewish tradition.

The mikvah and christian baptism are viewed as close cousins I believe.

True... but only by those who believe full immersion. The mikveh is the only example of a similar practice. Too bad it's not found in Scripture. Those who believe in pouring or sprinkling cite the Law of God where God repeatedly commands the waters of consecration to be "sprinkled" on priests, lepers, unclean people, sacrifices, etc. Even the pouring of water over sacrifices, the pouring of oil and drink offerings on the altar are examples of this practice. All of the ceremonial washings involving sprinkling and pouring are referred to by the writer of Hebrews as "washings", the word he uses is "baptismos". That's the writers word... not mine. The writer of Hebrews saw it fit to classify these sprinklings and pourings as "baptismos"... I didn't. So while those who believe in full immersion point to the Jewish tradition of the mikveh, those who believe in pouring and sprinkling point to the examples given in the very Law of God.

Please note... even prophecies in the OT about the NT include references to pouring and sprinkling. Ezekiel's prophecy of Pentecost is absolutely provokative and comforting to those who believe in pouring and sprinkling. Here's what the Lord said through Ezekiel regarding Pentecost,

Ezekiel 36:25-26
25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Here Ezekiel speaks of the baptism of Water and Spirit preached at Pentecost. Please note, God said he would "sprinkle" the water upon them. That explains how Peter and the Apostles baptized so many in the Upper City.

Another prophecy to consider,

Isaiah 52:15
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Most believe that the blood is applied at the time of baptism, thereby remitting sin. Look how the blood was applied in the Law...


Exodus 24:6
And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Exodus 29:16
And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar.

Exodus 29:20
Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.

Leviticus 8:30
And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.

Consider the cleansing waters and how they were applied under the Law...

Leviticus 14:7
And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

Numbers 8:6-7
6Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them.
7And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.

Numbers 19:20
But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.

These are just a FEW verses about sprinkling. We can get into pouring and the drink offerings, the brazen laver, and priestly consecrations under the Law to explore pouring if you like.

Consider some references in the NT,

Hebrews 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

The above is a baptismal reference, compare:

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Also consider these references indicating that Christ's blood is applied by sprinkling...

Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Sprinkling is found throughout the Scriptures.

The point is... those who teach that full immersion is an absolute necessity only have the Jewish tradition of mikveh to point to. Those who believe in sprinkling and pouring have the entire Law of God and the Prophets to point to for their types, shadows, and prophecies.

I hope that answered your question somewhat.

[Sam]

The point is mikveh as most understand it is nothing but a Jewish tradition that began at about the time of Ezra. It's not "biblical". It's one of those traditions of men that were taught as doctrines in Christ's day.

I would agree with that

[Aquila]

Sam, I want to say something sincere right here. It's hard to say these things. Because it isn't what I was taught in my UPCI church. I certainly don't enjoy this. But I'm asking the questions and presenting Scripture. I don't back down from bullies who just want to call me names or call me Catholic. I want to see solid Scripture and not just plucked definitions from a Greek dictionary. I'm just presenting something I think that honest souls should think about. I know it is counter our tradition... but what if our modern day organizational traditions are more "Pentecostal" than "Apostolic"?

[Sam]

Sam, let me run something by you, please share your thoughts. Considering the sick... the Bible says something interesting...

James 5:14-15
14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

If one were on their deathbed calling on prayer from you, an Apostolic minister, does this promise extend to them? Could you administer the forgiveness of sins to someone by anointing them with oil - in Jesus' name - and praying the prayer of faith with them?

Just a question I've had bounce around in my tinny weeny brain from time to time. What are your thoughts?

Verse 16 continues on "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

I couldn't forgive them, only God could. I can assure them that whatever they confess to God is forgiven. We some times pray with folks who are in a coma and we don't know their spiritual circumstances. In those cases we speak directly to them, explain that Jesus died on the cross for them, rose again, and will forgive them any and all sins. We then lead them in a simple prayer of forgiveness and commitment to the Lord. We've had nurses join in with us in this prayer and repeat a simple prayer. We believe that the person in the coma hears and understands and we trust that they do make this commitment.

We often quote James 5:13-18 to people when we pray for them. Years ago the Roman Catholics anointed with oil and called it extreme unction or the last rites. We don't want people to confuse our prayer and anointing with that Roman rite. We some times explain that healing is more than physical and that if they want to confess anything to the Lord or to us when we pray, they will be forgiven and it's just like starting over afresh.

Healing and forgiveness seem to go together in places like Psalm 103:3; Isaiah 53; and Mark 2:5-11. My father-in-law, who has been dead for several years now, would some times go forward for prayer when the elders were anointing and praying for folks. He might not have anything wrong physically but it would be like an act of reconsecration for him and for clearing out spiritual junk and making sure everything and anything were forgiven.

I mentioned in one of my posts some where that when I was a POC (Pastor On Call) at a local Vineyard Church here (1998-2003) I received a request to make a home call on an elderly person who was bedfast and dying. She had never been baptized and wanted to be baptized before she died. I tried to set up an appointment and was told that she was asleep and I should call back later. When I called back, I was told that a friend of the family had come in and baptized her. I assumed it was by sprinkling or pouring. I had prayed and was ready to go there to her home, explain how Jesus died for her sins and had risen from the dead and now offers forgiveness to us all and to lead her in a prayer of salvation. Then, based on the circumstances, I would pour a small amount of water on her or sprinkle her in Jesus' name if she was unable to get out of bed or get to enough water to immerse her.

Whether tradition or what, I still think that baptism should be by immersion but, as I've said here before, I believe the condition of the heart of the one being baptized is far more important than the amount of water or the words spoken during the ritual.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Sam, I want to say something sincere right here. It's hard to say these things. Because it isn't what I was taught in my UPCI church. I certainly don't enjoy this. But I'm asking the questions and presenting Scripture. I don't back down from bullies who just want to call me names or call me Catholic. I want to see solid Scripture and not just plucked definitions from a Greek dictionary. I'm just presenting something I think that honest souls should think about. I know it is counter our tradition... but what if our modern day organizational traditions are more "Pentecostal" than "Apostolic"?
Aquila, I'm enjoying your posts. They certainly give food for thought.

[Scott Hutchinson]

This is of interest.
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~revival/lie-1.html

[Adino]

Two cents alert!

The sins imputed to Christ were remitted at Calvary..... else he would not have been resurrected. :thumbsup

The resurrection declared the reality of an accomplished sin remission. It declared the efficacy of the Cross.

The "Good News" of the Gospel is that the resurrection openly declared that sin HAD BEEN remitted. There was a historical event about 2000 years ago which did not 'make sin remission possible,' it ACTUALLY 'remitted the sin imputed to Christ' and the fact that Christ resurrected declared the reality of this remission.

Since the resurrection indeed declared the reality of sin remission, it is not necessary for man's sin imputed to Christ to be remitted AGAIN in baptism (any sin remission thought to take place in baptism would be redundant). It is only necessary for man to RECEIVE, by faith, that historic forgiveness of sin gloriously proclaimed by the resurrection of Christ.

Sin remission took place on the Cross (prior to Christ's resurrection), and justification takes place when we place our trust in the Good News of that finished sin remitting work of Christ.

It is not that sin remission is enacted when we are identified with Christ's death in baptism, it is that we accept by faith alone that Christ's death enacted, on our behalf, a finished work of sin remission on the Cross and that we publicly participate in an act which signifies 1) our resurrection to new life and 2) our recognition of Christ's historic sin remitting work.

Again, that Christ rose again proves that the sin imputed to him had been removed. If Christ be not raised .... ye are still dead in your sins.

1Corinthians 15:14-17
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain..... if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Glory be to God! He is risen! The resurrection testified to the efficacy of the Cross in remitting those sins (our sins) imputed to Christ! What Good News!

LOL.... you can consider this a drive by posting. God bless!

[Steve Epley]

Two cents alert!

The sins imputed to Christ were remitted at Calvary..... else he would not have been resurrected. :thumbsup

The resurrection declared the reality of an accomplished sin remission. It declared the efficacy of the Cross.

The "Good News" of the Gospel is that the resurrection openly declared that sin HAD BEEN remitted. There was a historical event about 2000 years ago which did not 'make sin remission possible,' it ACTUALLY 'remitted the sin imputed to Christ' and the fact that Christ resurrected declared the reality of this remission.

Since the resurrection indeed declared the reality of sin remission, it is not necessary for man's sin imputed to Christ to be remitted AGAIN in baptism (any sin remission thought to take place in baptism would be redundant). It is only necessary for man to RECEIVE, by faith, that historic forgiveness of sin gloriously proclaimed by the resurrection of Christ.

Sin remission took place on the Cross (prior to Christ's resurrection), and justification takes place when we place our trust in the Good News of that finished sin remitting work of Christ.

It is not that sin remission is enacted when we are identified with Christ's death in baptism, it is that we accept by faith alone that Christ's death enacted, on our behalf, a finished work of sin remission on the Cross and that we publicly participate in an act which signifies 1) our resurrection to new life and 2) our recognition of Christ's historic sin remitting work.

Again, that Christ rose again proves that the sin imputed to him had been removed. If Christ be not raised .... ye are still dead in your sins.

1Corinthians 15:14-17
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain..... if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Glory be to God! He is risen! The resurrection testified to the efficacy of the Cross in remitting those sins (our sins) imputed to Christ! What Good News!

LOL.... you can consider this a drive by posting. God bless!

Adino on your overall statement I clearly agree all sins were remittted at Calvary by the blood and yes the resurrection proved it. Where you and I differ is where man recieves it by faith. By faith man obeys the form of doctrine (Rom.6:17) being identified with His death-BURIAL-resurrection by obedience through faith(Acts 2:38). Hope all is well with yours.:thumbsup Have we ever discussed this subject before?:ursofunny

[Steve Epley]

Aquilla the heart NOT the body is sprinkled when the body is washed or bathed through baptism. Heb. 10:12

[Aquila]

Two cents alert!

The sins imputed to Christ were remitted at Calvary..... else he would not have been resurrected. :thumbsup

The resurrection declared the reality of an accomplished sin remission. It declared the efficacy of the Cross.

The "Good News" of the Gospel is that the resurrection openly declared that sin HAD BEEN remitted. There was a historical event about 2000 years ago which did not 'make sin remission possible,' it ACTUALLY 'remitted the sin imputed to Christ' and the fact that Christ resurrected declared the reality of this remission.

Since the resurrection indeed declared the reality of sin remission, it is not necessary for man's sin imputed to Christ to be remitted AGAIN in baptism (any sin remission thought to take place in baptism would be redundant). It is only necessary for man to RECEIVE, by faith, that historic forgiveness of sin gloriously proclaimed by the resurrection of Christ.

Sin remission took place on the Cross (prior to Christ's resurrection), and justification takes place when we place our trust in the Good News of that finished sin remitting work of Christ.

It is not that sin remission is enacted when we are identified with Christ's death in baptism, it is that we accept by faith alone that Christ's death enacted, on our behalf, a finished work of sin remission on the Cross and that we publicly participate in an act which signifies 1) our resurrection to new life and 2) our recognition of Christ's historic sin remitting work.

Again, that Christ rose again proves that the sin imputed to him had been removed. If Christ be not raised .... ye are still dead in your sins.

1Corinthians 15:14-17
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain..... if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Glory be to God! He is risen! The resurrection testified to the efficacy of the Cross in remitting those sins (our sins) imputed to Christ! What Good News!

LOL.... you can consider this a drive by posting. God bless!

Baptism is an act of faith, a step of obedience. If one will not be water baptized one can hardly say that they have saving faith. God may extend mercy to those who cannot be baptized. But that only testifies against those who can and don't, for any possible exception makes the rule.

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Mark 16:16
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Aquila]

Aquilla the heart NOT the body is sprinkled when the body is washed or bathed through baptism. Heb. 10:12

I think we should compare the texts and consider the Greek.

Hebrews 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

The above is a baptismal reference, compare:

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The writer of Hebrews and the Apostle Peter are in full agreement. It is baptism (the sprinkling) that cleanses our hearts from an evil conscience bringing us the answer of a good conscience toward God.

It is important to note that the word "and" (Gk. kai) in Hebrews 10:22 translates "even" or "indeed". Thus it reads,


Hebrews 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, even (or indeed) our bodies washed with pure water.

The sprinkling from an evil conscience is the direct result of our bodies being washed with pure water. They are one and the same subject here. Not two subjects: one being a sprinkling of the heart - and the other a washing of the body. The sprinkling is both the cleansing from an evil conscience and the washing of the body with pure water.

That's the Greek and it perfectly harmonizes with the words of Peter.

Nice try though. ;)

[Aquila]

Aquila, I'm enjoying your posts. They certainly give food for thought.

Many thanks to you for your kind words. I'm only wanting to show what I've discovered in my studies and the questions my discoveries have raised for me.

[Adino]

Adino on your overall statement I clearly agree all sins were remittted at Calvary by the blood and yes the resurrection proved it. Where you and I differ is where man recieves it by faith. By faith man obeys the form of doctrine (Rom.6:17) being identified with His death-BURIAL-resurrection by obedience through faith(Acts 2:38). Hope all is well with yours.:thumbsup Have we ever discussed this subject before?:ursofunnyLet me hear you say it, Steve: "Sins are not remitted in baptism."

Or maybe this: "Baptism was not performed in order to get my sins remitted."

Really, will you agree that sin remission is not enacted in baptism?

We might have a new common ground from which to make progress.

As far as 'receiving by faith' : There is no action of any kind necessary to accept a fact of history.

God bless, Bro.

[LUKE2447]

Let me hear you say it, Steve: "Sins are not remitted in baptism."

Or maybe this: "Baptism was not performed in order to get my sins remitted."

Really, will you agree that sin remission is not enacted in baptism?

We might have a new common ground from which to make progress.

As far as 'receiving by faith' : There is no action of any kind necessary to accept a fact of history.

God bless, Bro.

Sins are remitted at baptism, sins are remitted at baptism...(slow monotone voice)

[freeatlast]

Thank you so much Aquila for such a thourogh answer ot my question about Jewish Mikveh being related to Christian baptism.

I wondered why I had not seen in OT scriptures as I had read about them in Jewish teachings.

I figured as much that it was in their oral traditions, which were many.

I concur that their many washings, of hands pots etc. were considered Mikvehs

I recall reading one time how they would carry things to the extreme. example talking a command for a preist to wash his hands before ministering in the temple. From that we get their oral law that eveery Jew must wash his hands and that washing must occor seven times. the left hand first washing the right hand.

All of this because a preist was to wash his hands once.

Again I have been enjoying your post Aquila.

After swallowing hook line and sinker everything conservative pentecostalism had to teach me for many years, I have learned this one thing. Question everything!!!

[Adino]

Sins are remitted at baptism, sins are remitted at baptism...(slow monotone voice)So, sins are twice remitted? Once before Christ's resurrection and once at baptism? Hmmm....

[Aquila]

Adino,

You never addressed post #263.

[Aquila]

So, is there anyone following this conversation who is still convinced that there is absolutely NO biblical basis for sprinkling or pouring in regards to water baptism? Sure, you may not agree. But I hope you now see why those who do believe in sprinkling and pouring believe as they do.

[Aquila]

Here's a medieval baptismal basin,

http://www.docbrown.info/docspics/northeast/nepics1/P3020635.jpg

Compare to this depiction of the Old Testament type of the Brazen Laver,

http://possessthevision.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/the-brazen-laver-and-the-holy-place-the-truth.jpg

We all know it's a Old Testament type of water baptism.

[Steve Epley]

Let me hear you say it, Steve: "Sins are not remitted in baptism."

Or maybe this: "Baptism was not performed in order to get my sins remitted."

Really, will you agree that sin remission is not enacted in baptism?

We might have a new common ground from which to make progress.

As far as 'receiving by faith' : There is no action of any kind necessary to accept a fact of history.

God bless, Bro.

Sins were remitted at Calvary I recieved through faith remission of sins when I am baptized in Jesus Name. ONLY when a person is immersed in Jesus Name does he recieve the remission of sins accomplished at Calvary.

[Steve Epley]

So, sins are twice remitted? Once before Christ's resurrection and once at baptism? Hmmm....

Sins were remitted at Calvary however I must recieve remission of sins. The ONLY way the penitent recieve remission of sins is when one is IMMERSED in Jesus Name.

[Steve Epley]

So, is there anyone following this conversation who is still convinced that there is absolutely NO biblical basis for sprinkling or pouring in regards to water baptism? Sure, you may not agree. But I hope you now see why those who do believe in sprinkling and pouring believe as they do.

NOTHING in what you posted remotely applies to folks being sprinkled with water as a baptism in the NT.

Baptizo means to plunge-dip-immerse-submerge and NEVER sprinkle in NT GreeK. Not the same word at all.

[Aquila]

NOTHING in what you posted remotely applies to folks being sprinkled with water as a baptism in the NT.

Baptizo means to plunge-dip-immerse-submerge and NEVER sprinkle in NT GreeK. Not the same word at all.

I think you need to have a few Greek lessons with people who actually speak Greek on a daily basis. The word “baptizo” not only means to “plunge-dip-immerse-submerge”, but also “wash-bathe-rinse”. That is why the writer of Hebrews (not me) used the term “baptismos” (translated “baptisms” or “washings”) to describe the sprinkling and pouring involved in the OT sprinklings and washings of the priests, people, lepers, sacrifices, etc. If these “sprinklings” and “pourings” didn’t constitute a “baptismos” (“baptizo”, singular) you’ll have to take it up with the writer of Hebrews. ;)

Question:

The tabernacle plan involved the Brazen Altar (signifying Calvary/Repentance), Brazen Laver (signifying Christ’s burial/Baptism), the Golden Candlesticks (signifying walking by the Light of the Holy Ghost), the Showbread (signifying Christ’s broken body/our sustenance from the Word of God), the Holy of Holies with the Ark of the Covenant (signifying God’s Presence/our one on one relationship with the LORD).

- Was the Brazen Laver an OT type of water baptism, yes or no?
- If not, why do we teach that it is in our Bible studies?
- If it is… how was it applied to the priests; by effusion or immersion?

I await your response.

Love you Bro. E.

[Steve Epley]

I think you need to have a few Greek lessons with people who actually speak Greek on a daily basis. The word “baptizo” not only means to “plunge-dip-immerse-submerge”, but also “wash-bathe-rinse”. That is why the writer of Hebrews (not me) used the term “baptismos” (translated “baptisms” or “washings”) to describe the sprinkling and pouring involved in the OT sprinklings and washings of the priests, people, lepers, sacrifices, etc. If these “sprinklings” and “pourings” didn’t constitute a “baptismos” (“baptizo”, singular) you’ll have to take it up with the writer of Hebrews. ;)

Question:

The tabernacle plan involved the Brazen Altar (signifying Calvary/Repentance), Brazen Laver (signifying Christ’s burial/Baptism), the Golden Candlesticks (signifying walking by the Light of the Holy Ghost), the Showbread (signifying Christ’s broken body/our sustenance from the Word of God), the Holy of Holies with the Ark of the Covenant (signifying God’s Presence/our one on one relationship with the LORD).

- Was the Brazen Laver an OT type of water baptism, yes or no?
- If not, why do we teach that it is in our Bible studies?
- If it is… how was it applied to the priests; by effusion or immersion?

I await your response.

Love you Bro. E.

The immersion in the OT was the DIPPING of whatever into whatever the dipping and the sprinkling were connected but not the same. Baptism in NT is dipping the body and heart being sprinkled. YOU was sprinkling the wrong element and dipping the wrong element. BODY dipped and heart sprinkled.:thumbsup

[Aquila]

The immersion in the OT was the DIPPING of whatever into whatever the dipping and the sprinkling were connected but not the same. Baptism in NT is dipping the body and heart being sprinkled. YOU was sprinkling the wrong element and dipping the wrong element. BODY dipped and heart sprinkled.:thumbsup

I think you’re taking a lot of liberties here and defining things where and how you wish to. The “washings” of the OT included all of the “baptismos” of the OT be they dipping, sprinkling, or pouring.

I’m going to lovingly call you out here. I’m afraid that you’re hiding in vague generalities ("whatevers") to substantiate your point. Let’s focus in on something specific and move on from there to the next point the discussion leads us to. Let’s focus specifically on the brazen laver.

Specifically, the Brazen Laver (an assured OT type of water baptism) was employed by having the priests, sacrifices, etc. effused (sprinkled or poured upon) not immersed. The “sprinkling” of the waters of consecration from this laver upon the priesthood, the sacrifices, etc. was the primary function of this item. We are diligently taught that this item, and its use, represents, or foreshadows, NT water baptism. If it doesn’t adequately represent water baptism perhaps our co-relation of the brazen laver in the tabernacle plan to water baptism is gravely mistaken.

- Was the Brazen Laver employed in the Tabernacle Plan an OT type and shadow of NT water baptism? Yes or no?
- Was the application of the Brazen Laver applied via effusion or immersion?


P.S.

I’m curious, can you locate a specific case in the Law of Moses where “dipping” was prescribed that you believe the writer of Hebrews was writing about?

I look forward to your response.

[Sam]

Were the sons of Aaron priests because they were born into that lineage or because they were sprinkled with blood and water and then anointed?

Was their daily washing at the laver (not in the laver) a picture of our cleansing on a daily or as needed basis by the Blood of Jesus? Do we get baptized over again on a daily basis as we minister for Jesus?

Are we putting too much emphasis on an Old Testament shadow or type or picture?

[Aquila]

Were the sons of Aaron priests because they were born into that lineage or because they were sprinkled with blood and water and then anointed?

I don’t believe that one was automatically inducted into the priesthood merely based on lineage. The Law required first, that the priests be Levites. Second, the Law commands that those Levites serving as priests be consecrated at the appropriate age before they were permitted to minister in the Tabernacle. Not just any yahoo from the line of Levi (or Aaron) could walk up and be a priest. They had to be consecrated at the appropriate age at the Laver. And no doubt, some schooling among the established priests preceded this.

Was their daily washing at the laver (not in the laver) a picture of our cleansing on a daily or as needed basis by the Blood of Jesus? Do we get baptized over again on a daily basis as we minister for Jesus?

Assuredly their daily washings are a picture of our daily cleansing as needed by the blood of Jesus. However, without the initial consecration at the Brazen Laver one wasn’t granted that access to the Tabernacle. Hence the initial consecration at the Laver is indeed a picture of water baptism, while the daily washings may typify our daily cleansing. Or it may have been a perpetual ordinance to drive home the need for water baptism.

Are we putting too much emphasis on an Old Testament shadow or type or picture?

I think it’s just the opposite. We’ve not considered its full implications as it relates to water baptism. When cannot say that something is a type of baptism and decry how it was employed.

[Adino]

Sins were remitted at Calvary I recieved through faith remission of sins when I am baptized in Jesus Name. ONLY when a person is immersed in Jesus Name does he recieve the remission of sins accomplished at Calvary.So, are the sins of a man that have been historically imputed to Christ and declared to be historically remitted by the resurrection considered remitted/removed/gone forever, in the eyes of God, before that man is baptized?

Yes or No?

[Adino]

Adino,

You never addressed post #263.Hello, Aquila... since I have a minute I suppose I can remind you of my thoughts on your position.

Baptism is an act of faith...
I agree. Baptism is an act of faith. It is an 'act of' saving faith. It is not faith, but an 'act of' faith. Simple cause and effect. The act would not exist without the preexistence of faith.

...a step of obedience.
Better said, it is a sign of an obedient heart.

If one will not be water baptized one can hardly say that they have saving faith.The Church was to be built on those who confessed Christ. Leadership was to accept into the ranks of the Church at large only those who professed Christ. Those willing to voice their faith in Christ were to be baptized and accepted 'as saved' into the believing community. Baptism was the time of an open declaration of the object of the candidate's faith and a picture of the candidate's resurrection to new life having trusted in the finished sin remitting work of the Cross.

Though baptism was traditionally the time of 'eperotema' or 'inquiry' of a man good conscience toward God, it must be accepted that saving faith exists far prior to the act in the eyes of God. While justification before God comes at the moment the heart is quickened to new life and faith comes into being, justification before our peers comes only through external manifestation of that internally existing heart of faith already recognized by God.

God may extend mercy to those who cannot be baptized.He absolutely does.

But that only testifies against those who can and don't, for any possible exception makes the rule. I agree that believers are to be baptized. Those baptized are to be accepted 'as having been saved by grace through faith alone' into the Church. Leadership should only baptize those who have been saved by faith. Only these are to be welcomed into the Church community at large as those who are the 'saved.'

I agree with all your mentioned Scriptures.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the question I just posed to Steve:

Are the sins of a man that have been historically imputed to Christ and declared to be historically remitted by the resurrection considered remitted/removed/gone forever, in the eyes of God, before that man is baptized?

Yes or No?

[Steve Epley]

So, are the sins of a man that have been historically imputed to Christ and declared to be historically remitted by the resurrection considered remitted/removed/gone forever, in the eyes of God, before that man is baptized?

Yes or No?

Adino have we ever discussed this before?:ursofunny

1. YOU do not believe that a person has recieved PERSONAL forgiveness of sins until they accept Christ through whatever.
2. I do NOT believe a person recieves PERSONAL remission of sins until they have been immersed in Jesus Name.
BOTH of us believe HISTORICALLY sins have been forgiven and remitted once and for all by Christ's death and resurrection YET BOTH us believe we have to recieve it PERSONALLY. Neither of us believe in Universalism which teaches the historical acts saves anyone without their PERSONAL acceptance of His pardon.

[Adino]

Was that a Yes or No? ;)

[Steve Epley]

Was that a Yes or No? ;)

Let me make it a but clearer for my friend.

NOT ONE person has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in Jesus Name since Pentecost.:thumbsup

[Adino]

Let me make it a but clearer for my friend.

NOT ONE person has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in Jesus Name since Pentecost.:thumbsupSo, is the person who has not yet "received remission" of those sins imputed to Christ still condemned by those sins which no longer exist in God's eyes?

[Steve Epley]

So, is the person who has not yet "received remission" of those sins imputed to Christ still condemned by those sins which no longer exist in God's eyes?

The righteousness of God is NOT imputed until sins are remitted in Jesus Name.

[Adino]

That wasn't the question.... but we're getting there ;)

I'll ask it again.

Is the person who has not yet "received remission" of those sins imputed to Christ still condemned by those sins which no longer exist in God's eyes?

Yes or No?

[Steve Epley]

That wasn't the question.... but we're getting there ;)

I'll ask it again.

Is the person who has not yet "received remission" of those sins imputed to Christ still condemned by those sins which no longer exist in God's eyes?

Yes or No?

Since ALL of mankind's sins are forgiven at Calvary is everyone saved regardless of their acceptance or rejection of Calvary. Are you turning a Universalism?

[Adino]

Of course not.

Please answer the question, Bro.

[Steve Epley]

ALL mankind's sins are forgiven by Calvary's atonement then man is lost because he either rejects or neglects it's pardon.

So your argument applies to you as well as to me so I don't understand the question?

[gloryseeker]

ALL mankind's sins are forgiven by Calvary's atonement then man is lost because he either rejects or neglects it's pardon.

So your argument applies to you as well as to me so I don't understand the question?

There was no "atonement" at Calvary. That would reduce the blood of Jesus to that of bulls and goats. Sins were remitted at Calvary.

[Adino]

ALL mankind's sins are forgiven by Calvary's atonement then man is lost because he either rejects or neglects it's pardon.

So your argument applies to you as well as to me so I don't understand the question?So, would you say that man is condemned, not because of those sins already remitted, but simply because he does not believe?

John 3:18

John 3:36

John 16:8-9

[Steve Epley]

There was no "atonement" at Calvary. That would reduce the blood of Jesus to that of bulls and goats. Sins were remitted at Calvary.

Sins were remitted at Calvary for ALL mankind that is NOT the argument! The argument is where they are PERSONALLY accepted.

[Steve Epley]

So, would you say that man is condemned, not because of those sins already remitted, but simply because he does not believe?John 3:18John 3:36John 16:8-9Man believes WHEN he obeys the gospel.

[*AQuietPlace*]

That wasn't the question.... but we're getting there ;)

I'll ask it again.

Is the person who has not yet "received remission" of those sins imputed to Christ still condemned by those sins which no longer exist in God's eyes?

Yes or No?
I'm trying to understand your question..... are you saying that those sins 'no longer exist' because they are forgiven when you repent?

[Aquila]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the question I just posed to Steve:

Are the sins of a man that have been historically imputed to Christ and declared to be historically remitted by the resurrection considered remitted/removed/gone forever, in the eyes of God, before that man is baptized?

Yes or No?

If the man’s sins were considered remitted/removed/gone at Calvary… man doesn’t even need to believe to experience salvation. So I must say that maybe I’m not understanding your premise.

I see it like this. Christ’s death satisfied the Law’s requirements for salvation. The wages of sin is death, Christ died in the place of all who come to him. Therefore, until one comes to Christ in faith that sacrifice doesn’t apply to them. When one comes to Christ in faith and repents of their sins (turns from their sins) they are “justified” (Romans 5:1). Justification exists as long as one has faith in Christ Jesus. However, justification doesn’t equal forgiveness (remission). Justified means “to be made just”, this “being made just” is for the express purpose of allowing one to come forward to receive the remission of their sins. This grants us audience with God. God requires that we be baptized if we want our sins remitted. If we resist, we will pay for our sins.

For example,

A wanted criminal cannot just barge into the court of the King and claim pardon. They have to make a formal request for pardon and audience with the King. The King might accept that request and allow them to come forward into the court before him, this justifies them to enter the court. Now, once before the King, the King may issue restitution or an act of service in conjunction with the pardon. Repentance get’s us before our King. Once before him, our King says, “Be water baptized, taking upon yourself the likeness of my burial… then you will receive remission (pardon).”

So I believe that repentance qualifies one for the remission received at baptism. Both are absolutely essential.

Many repent and get God’s attention, and receive his blessings. However, few move into obeying him. At the very best, if a person refuses to be water baptized as Scripture commands they are in rebellion and have backslidden from repentance.

[El Predicador]

Sins were remitted at Calvary for ALL mankind that is NOT the argument! The argument is where they are PERSONALLY accepted.

Man believes WHEN he obeys the gospel.

Preach it.

To believe any other way is to accept a Universalist world view.

The sacrifice has been made, but the pardon still must be accepted, else everyone's sins are remitted and they are in right standing with God BEFORE repentance.

The fact of Calvary, and even belief that Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh is not enough.

Even the devils believe and tremble.

The application of the blood from the universal concept of the sin of mankind, to the individual sinner requires repentance and total acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ in that individual's life.

[KWSS1976]

EL Predicador the devil can even speak in tongues but that don't stop you guys from doing it so would yall please stop using the(even the devil believes thing.....)

This saying does not validate anything.....Even the devils believe and tremble

[Steve Epley]

Preach it.

To believe any other way is to accept a Universalist world view.

The sacrifice has been made, but the pardon still must be accepted, else everyone's sins are remitted and they are in right standing with God BEFORE repentance.

The fact of Calvary, and even belief that Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh is not enough.

Even the devils believe and tremble.

The application of the blood from the universal concept of the sin of mankind, to the individual sinner requires repentance and total acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ in that individual's life.

True by obeying the gospel message of Acts 2:38.

[Adino]

Man believes WHEN he obeys the gospel.Went to grab a quick lunch....

Again, this wasn't the question I asked....

I'll ask it another way:

Is man condemned by God for the sins remitted at Calvary or does Scripture speak of something else for which he is condemned?

The point is this:

There is but one thing which brings condemnation on mankind today.... UNBELIEF. Those who do not believe the Gospel of Christ are condemned (John 3:18; John 3:36John 16:8-9).

IMPORTANT: The Gospel is not a PLAN FOR remission, it is NEWS OF remission.

Steve, you've admitted that "the Gospel (Good News)" is Good News concerning the historic event of sin remission which took place prior to the resurrection, yet while you accept that the Gospel is Good News of a historic remission you go on to redefine the Gospel as a PLAN FOR remission.

Having done this you then say that man doesn't 'believe' the Gospel until he 'follows' what you have redefined as the Gospel plan for remission. To 'believe' or 'obey' your gospel is to participate in the new 'gospel plan.'

This is nonsense and another gospel because the actual Gospel is not a step plan to be followed, but rather an accomplished event of history to be acknowledged and accepted by a trusting heart. It is a report to be obediently believed (Romans 10:16).

Sin remission WAS ENACTED at Calvary and THAT is Good News to be accepted by a heart of faith. Sin remission is not ENACTED AGAIN when one trusts in the historic remission of the Cross, nor is it ENACTED AGAIN when one participates in baptism which is an act of faith dramatizing what Christ did on the Cross and our resurrection to new life in him.

To 'obey' the Gospel is to believe the report God gives of his Son (Romans 10:16). To believe the report is to set to seal that God is true (John 3:33). To reject the report in unbelief is to call God a liar (1John 5:10) and to invite his condemnation and wrath (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9).

We are called to respond to Good News not to another PLAN said to perform that which the Good News proclaims as having been accomplished. I fear you have redefined the Gospel to mean something other than the Good News it proclaims.

Don't you miss our talks :thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

Went to grab a quick lunch....

Again, this wasn't the question I asked....

I'll ask it another way:

Is man condemned by God for the sins remitted at Calvary or does Scripture speak of something else for which he is condemned?

The point is this:

There is but one thing which brings condemnation on mankind today.... UNBELIEF. Those who do not believe the Gospel of Christ are condemned (John 3:18; John 3:36John 16:8-9).

IMPORTANT: The Gospel is not a PLAN FOR remission, it is NEWS OF remission.

Steve, you've admitted that "the Gospel (Good News)" is Good News concerning the historic event of sin remission which took place prior to the resurrection, yet while you accept that the Gospel is Good News of a historic remission you go on to redefine the Gospel as a PLAN FOR remission.

Having done this you then say that man doesn't 'believe' the Gospel until he 'follows' what you have redefined as the Gospel plan for remission. To 'believe' or 'obey' your gospel is to participate in the new 'gospel plan.'

This is nonsense and another gospel because the actual Gospel is not a step plan to be followed, but rather an accomplished event of history to be acknowledged and accepted by a trusting heart. It is a report to be obediently believed (Romans 10:16).

Sin remission WAS ENACTED at Calvary and THAT is Good News to be accepted by a heart of faith. Sin remission is not ENACTED AGAIN when one trusts in the historic remission of the Cross, nor is it ENACTED AGAIN when one participates in baptism which is an act of faith dramatizing what Christ did on the Cross and our resurrection to new life in him.

To 'obey' the Gospel is to believe the report God gives of his Son (Romans 10:16). To believe the report is to set to seal that God is true (John 3:33). To reject the report in unbelief is to call God a liar (1John 5:10) and to invite his condemnation and wrath (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9).

We are called to respond to Good News not to another PLAN said to perform that which the Good News proclaims as having been accomplished. I fear you have redefined the Gospel to mean something other than the Good News it proclaims.

Don't you miss our talks :thumbsup

Did YOU read what you wrote?:foottap YOU have stated repentance is an act of faith. So faith is useless without repentance. TRUE faith produces repentance in man! And TRUE faith produces obedience to the gospel which includes baptism FOR the remission of sins.

I have NO new PLAN I preach the plan Jesus told his apostles to preach Mt.28:19-Mk.16:16-Luke 24:47 and obeyed by the Apostles at Pentecost in the answer given in Acts 2:38!
Tis the 'faith-only' folks who have NO plan!:thumbsup

The ONLY reason a person is NOT baptized FOR the remission of sins they do NOT believe the gospel message. True faith put the believers in the Ark. Saying I believe but staying OUTSIDE the ARK is proof of their unbelief.

Yes I enjoy our talks. I nearly have you restored wiill the musicians please come to the music and play "One Way To God.":heart

[Adino]

YOU have stated repentance is an act of faith.
Steve, please show us where I have stated this. It is untrue.

[Adino]

Steve, is man condemned by God for the sins you have agreed were remitted prior to the resurrection at Calvary?

If you believe man remains condemned for those sins, then you do not believe Christ accomplished sin remission on the Cross.

Sounds like you have another gospel which calls the work of the Cross inadequate.

[El Predicador]

EL Predicador the devil can even speak in tongues but that don't stop you guys from doing it so would yall please stop using the(even the devil believes thing.....)

This saying does not validate anything.....Even the devils believe and tremble

True son, I have help cast the devil out of many a fake tongue talker.

As far as the "devil believes thing" I believe you are referring to Holy Scripture and no I shall not stop using it.

[Adino]

If the man’s sins were considered remitted/removed/gone at Calvary… man doesn’t even need to believe to experience salvation.Ah, but having been reconciled by his death we are saved by his life (Romans 5:10) and only he that believes is passed from death unto life (John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

To believe the report of the Gospel is to set to seal that God is true (John 3:33). To reject the report in unbelief is to call God a liar (1John 5:10) and to invite his condemnation and wrath (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9). Condemnation comes because of unbelief, not because of any of the sins remitted on the Cross.

[El Predicador]

Steve, is man condemned by God for the sins you have agreed were remitted prior to the resurrection at Calvary?

If you believe man remains condemned for those sins, then you do not believe Christ accomplished sin remission on the Cross.

Sounds like you have another gospel which calls the work of the Cross inadequate.

Do you believe a man is saved before he repents?

[KWSS1976]

O so you know what real tongues sound like El predicador I thought it was a "Heavenly language" so how would you know if it was fake or not?

[El Predicador]

O so you know what real tongues sound like El predicador I thought it was a "Heavenly language" so how would you know if it was fake or not?

It's called spiritual discernment son, a topic it sounds like you are totally unfamiliar with.

[Adino]

Do you believe a man is saved before he repents?Man is saved IN repentance. Repentance is a returning to God in faith. The New Testament calls for the repentant heart to return from dead works to a faith in God via the record he gave of his Son. The repentant heart comes to God via the Gospel message of Christ.

[El Predicador]

Man is saved IN repentance. Repentance is a returning to God in faith. The New Testament calls for the repentant heart to return from dead works to a faith in God via the record he gave of his Son. The repentant heart comes to God via the Gospel message of Christ.

Good then we agree repentance is a absolute necessity of salvation?

[Steve Epley]

Steve, please show us where I have stated this. It is untrue.

NOT in the discussion but I thought I remembered you saying this? You do NOT believe repentance is necessary?

[Adino]

NOT in the discussion but I thought I remembered you saying this? You do NOT believe repentance is necessary?Of course, repentance is necessary. Man is saved IN repentance.

Repentance is a returning to God in faith. The New Testament calls for the repentant heart to return from dead works to a faith in God via the record he gave of his Son. The repentant heart comes to God via the Gospel message of Christ.

[Steve Epley]

Ah, but having been reconciled by his death we are saved by his life (Romans 5:10) and only he that believes is passed from death unto life (John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

To believe the report of the Gospel is to set to seal that God is true (John 3:33). To reject the report in unbelief is to call God a liar (1John 5:10) and to invite his condemnation and wrath (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9). Condemnation comes because of unbelief, not because of any of the sins remitted on the Cross.

All of this agree with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However your 'faith' to me is mental assent! Faith is NOT passive but active thus true faith produces repentance-baptism FOR remission of sins-infilling of the Spirit.

[Steve Epley]

Of course, repentance is necessary. Man is saved IN repentance.

Repentance is a returning to God in faith. The New Testament calls for the repentant heart to return from dead works to a faith in God via the record he gave of his Son. The repentant heart comes to God via the Gospel message of Christ.

God does NOT repent for man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The SAME NT that calls for repentance calls for baptism FOR remission of sins.

[Adino]

Steve, really good to see you, bro. I haven't posted here in a while and am about to head out of the house. If I don't see you again soon, you take care and God bless. Hope all is well! I'll give you the last word for a while.

Whoa.... just posted this and saw your other posts.

Quickly, when will you ever learn how to properly define faith as notitia + assensus + fiducia? It is not the mere mental assent straw man you consistently attack. I know you might be a slow learner, but come on! ;)

Of course, God doesn't repent for man. Now you're just being silly. We've been over this. Please answer post #304. Catch you later!

[KWSS1976]

ELPREDICATOR Who helped you here per your quote....

True son, I have help cast the devil out of many a fake tongue talker

[*AQuietPlace*]

Steve, is man condemned by God for the sins you have agreed were remitted prior to the resurrection at Calvary?

If you believe man remains condemned for those sins, then you do not believe Christ accomplished sin remission on the Cross.

Sounds like you have another gospel which calls the work of the Cross inadequate.
You know, this is a really interesting point.

Food for thought..... hmmm.......

[Steve Epley]

You know, this is a really interesting point.

Food for thought..... hmmm.......

The end result is universalism. Jesus died for ALL. 2Cor. 5:14
He is the propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE world. 1Jn.2:2
Jesus was the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world. Jn. 1:29

So ALL men's sins were forgiven at Calvary, yet ALL men will NOT be saved.

Man has to recieve forgiveness and remission of sins.

A pardon is NOT a pardon unless recieved as a pardon.

[Pressing-On]

The end result is universalism. Jesus died for ALL. 2Cor. 5:14
He is the propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE world. 1Jn.2:2
Jesus was the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world. Jn. 1:29

So ALL men's sins were forgiven at Calvary, yet ALL men will NOT be saved.

Man has to receive forgiveness and remission of sins.

A pardon is NOT a pardon unless received as a pardon.

Amen! :thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

Steve, is man condemned by God for the sins you have agreed were remitted prior to the resurrection at Calvary?

If you believe man remains condemned for those sins, then you do not believe Christ accomplished sin remission on the Cross.

Sounds like you have another gospel which calls the work of the Cross inadequate.

Good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU are in the same boat YOU require faith and repentance does that make the work on the cross inadequate?

You stop too soon!:thumbsup

[*AQuietPlace*]

The end result is universalism. Jesus died for ALL. 2Cor. 5:14
He is the propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE world. 1Jn.2:2
Jesus was the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world. Jn. 1:29

So ALL men's sins were forgiven at Calvary, yet ALL men will NOT be saved.

Man has to recieve forgiveness and remission of sins.

A pardon is NOT a pardon unless recieved as a pardon.
I don't think so. I can see his point without it turning into universalism.

Our sins were remitted, but we have to accept that for ourselves to be saved.

[Steve Epley]

I don't think so. I can see his point without it turning into universalism.

Our sins were remitted, but we have to accept that for ourselves to be saved.

True!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You ACCEPT that by obeying the gospel.

[Adino]

True!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You ACCEPT that by obeying the gospel.Steve, you've redefined the Gospel. Good News of sin remission is a matter of history accepted with a heart of faith. Good News IS NOT a plan for sin remission to be performed by mankind. The Gospel report is 'obeyed' by 'acceptance,' there is no additional plan to follow. The Gospel is the Good News that God's plan WORKED!

You said that if your PLAN makes the work of the Cross inadequate so does the idea of repentance and faith. NO! There is a huge difference! Simply returning to God by resting your heart in the Good News of Christ's finished work indicates an acceptance that the work of the Cross was indeed adequate and that sin was indeed effectively remitted.

On the other hand, your position holds that the work of the Cross only made it possible for another plan to be introduced. Man is still condemned by those sins, which were supposed to be imputed to Christ and remitted on the Cross, until he is water baptized. If he is still condemned by those sins, then the Cross was ineffective in removing them from the eyes of God. Your view of the Gospel declares the Cross ineffective.

I asked, "Is man condemned by God for the sins you have agreed were remitted prior to the resurrection at Calvary?"

You would not answer.

I believe NO - he IS NOT condemned for any sin remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection. Does this mean that ALL men are saved? Absolutely NOT. It means that God has dealt with the sins of the world, but has set before man the testimony of His Son.

Man either 1) accepts with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to seal that God is true and LIVES in a state of justification.... OR... 2) man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation.

He that believes in the Good News of Christ's finished sin remitting work of the Cross is quickened from spiritual death unto spiritual life (John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26) BUT he that refuses to believe the Good News of Christ's finished sin remitting work of the Cross abides spiritually dead in the wrath and condemnation of God (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9).

Is man condemned by God for the sins proven by the resurrection to have been remitted at Calvary?

NO! He is condemned because of unbelief that those sins were effectively dealt with by God through Christ on Calvary. He is condemend because he has rejected the Gospel message of Christ.

Steve, I fearfully wonder at times whether you are rejecting the Gospel message of Christ by holding a position which inherently implies the Cross was ineffective. :hmmm

[Steve Epley]

Steve, you've redefined the Gospel. Good News of sin remission is a matter of history accepted with a heart of faith. Good News IS NOT a plan for sin remission to be performed by mankind. The Gospel report is 'obeyed' by 'acceptance,' there is no additional plan to follow. The Gospel is the Good News that God's plan WORKED!

You said that if your PLAN makes the work of the Cross inadequate so does the idea of repentance and faith. NO! There is a huge difference! Simply returning to God by resting your heart in the Good News of Christ's finished work indicates an acceptance that the work of the Cross was indeed adequate and that sin was indeed effectively remitted.

On the other hand, your position holds that the work of the Cross only made it possible for another plan to be introduced. Man is still condemned by those sins, which were supposed to be imputed to Christ and remitted on the Cross, until he is water baptized. If he is still condemned by those sins, then the Cross was ineffective in removing them from the eyes of God. Your view of the Gospel declares the Cross ineffective.

I asked, "Is man condemned by God for the sins you have agreed were remitted prior to the resurrection at Calvary?"

You would not answer.

I believe NO - he IS NOT condemned for any sin remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection. Does this mean that ALL men are saved? Absolutely NOT. It means that God has dealt with the sins of the world, but has set before man the testimony of His Son.

Man either 1) accepts with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to seal that God is true and LIVES in a state of justification.... OR... 2) man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation.

He that believes in the Good News of Christ's finished sin remitting work of the Cross is quickened from spiritual death unto spiritual life (John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26) BUT he that refuses to believe the Good News of Christ's finished sin remitting work of the Cross abides spiritually dead in the wrath and condemnation of God (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9).

Is man condemned by God for the sins proven by the resurrection to have been remitted at Calvary?

NO! He is condemned because of unbelief that those sins were effectively dealt with by God through Christ on Calvary. He is condemend because he has rejected the Gospel message of Christ.

Steve, I fearfully wonder at times whether you are rejecting the Gospel message of Christ by holding a position which inherently implies the Cross was ineffective. :hmmm

Again my articulate friend is hedging.

First he chides me in saying that a man will be condemned even though his sins are historically forgiven and remitted and Calvary WHEN IN TRUTH HE BELIEVES THE SAME.
The DIFFERENCE is the METHOD of accepting. HIS method is foreign to Jesus and the Apostles.
Jesus COMMANDED Mt. 28:19-Mk. 16:16-Luke 24:47.
The Apostles OBEYED Acts 2:38.
In his method obedience to REPENT which is NOT enough.
God's method delivered by the man who had the keys Mt.16:18-20 and sanctioned by the other Apostles Acts 2:14 includes repentance BUT ALSO includes baptism in Jesus Name FOR the remission of sins and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. ALL operated by the heart through faith.
When one refuses to obey the gospel message he rejects the remedy for sin provided at Calvary.
It is one thing to make and provide the prescription it is another thing to take and apply the prescription.
Calvary provided the prescription obedience through faith applies the prescription.
The presciption provided is forgiveness and remission of sins in HIs shed blood the application is obeying Acts 2:38.
NOT ONE person has applied the provided prescription for sins( the shed blood of Christ) without obeying Acts 2:38.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

[*AQuietPlace*]

Just pondering.... when the disciples sat in the Upper Room awaiting the comforter, were they not yet saved? If one of them had died of a heart attack while waiting, would he/she have burned in hell?

[Adino]

First he chides me in saying that a man will be condemned even though his sins are historically forgiven and remitted and Calvary WHEN IN TRUTH HE BELIEVES THE SAME.Don't understand why a man so bright is having such a hard time with the facts, Steve. You say the man is condemned BY THOSE SINS ALREADY REMITTED. I say he is NOT condemned by those sins already committed, but he is condemned FOR THE SIN OF UNBELIEF (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9). I hold UNBELIEF as the "sin unto death" (1John 5:17). The man who denies Christ is the man "denied before the angels of God" (Luke 12:9). There is a vast difference in our position.

Tell us plainly, Steve.

Is a man still condemned for those sins already remitted on the Cross until he is baptized?

Yes or No? Have a backbone here, friend ;) Take a position. Say YES or NO. Why are you so afraid of voicing your position? Is it because you know it deems the Cross as INEFFECTIVE?

[Sam]

Just pondering.... when the disciples sat in the Upper Room awaiting the comforter, were they not yet saved? If one of them had died of a heart attack while waiting, would he/she have burned in hell?

A couple of different opinions here among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals

1. Some believe the 120 were saved under the Old Covenant and then on the Day of Pentecost they were baptized in the Spirit (born of the Spirit) and then they all got baptized in water (born of the Spirit) so they were saved under the New Covenant.

2. Others believe the 120 plus 380 other believers were already saved because they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and had been His disciples (some since the beginning of His ministry), and then 120 of them received an enduement of power, a special anointing of the Holy Spirit called the promise of the Father on the Day of Pentecost.

[Steve Epley]

Don't understand why a man so bright is having such a hard time with the facts, Steve. You say the man is condemned BY THOSE SINS ALREADY REMITTED. I say he is NOT condemned by those sins already committed, but he is condemned FOR THE SIN OF UNBELIEF. I hold UNBELIEF as the "sin unto death" (1John 5:17). The man who denies Christ is the man "denied before the angels of God" (Luke 12:9). There is a vast difference in our position.

Tell us plainly, Steve.

Is a man still condemned for those sins already remitted on the Cross until he is baptized?

Yes or No? Have a backbone here, friend ;) Take a position. Say YES or NO. Why are you so afraid of voicing your position? Is it because you know it deems the Cross as INEFFECTIVE?

YES a man will be condemned though his sins were forgiven at Calvary BECAUSE he must accept the forgiveness.
The United States court system had a similar case years ago a convict by the name of Wilson recieved a pardon from President Andrew Jackson however he refused the pardon. This went up the court chain and every court ruled he was pardoned thus he MUST be released however when his case came before the Supreme Court the Justice in his wisdom ruled " a pardon is NOT a pardon unless accepted by the one being pardoned." A pardon cannot be forced on anyone they can either accept or reject.
On Passover night the faith to slay the Lamb was one thing to apply the shed blood was another. To have faith in the shed blood in that night meant to apply the blood AS PRESCRIBED.
I contend though YOU have faith in the slain Lamb historically YOU MUST apply the blood as PRESCRIBED!
That prescription is Acts 2:38.

[Adino]

Just pondering.... when the disciples sat in the Upper Room awaiting the comforter, were they not yet saved? If one of them had died of a heart attack while waiting, would he/she have burned in hell?My opinion...... absolutely NOT. They would have been saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

[Steve Epley]

Just pondering.... when the disciples sat in the Upper Room awaiting the comforter, were they not yet saved? If one of them had died of a heart attack while waiting, would he/she have burned in hell?

Hypothedicals are fun some time BUT NO one died. And they were COMMANDED to wait for the promise. Acts 1:4-5, Luke 24:49.

[Steve Epley]

Don't understand why a man so bright is having such a hard time with the facts, Steve. You say the man is condemned BY THOSE SINS ALREADY REMITTED. I say he is NOT condemned by those sins already committed, but he is condemned FOR THE SIN OF UNBELIEF (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9). I hold UNBELIEF as the "sin unto death" (1John 5:17). The man who denies Christ is the man "denied before the angels of God" (Luke 12:9). There is a vast difference in our position.

Tell us plainly, Steve.

Is a man still condemned for those sins already remitted on the Cross until he is baptized?

Yes or No? Have a backbone here, friend ;) Take a position. Say YES or NO. Why are you so afraid of voicing your position? Is it because you know it deems the Cross as INEFFECTIVE?

The ONLY reason someone is NOT baptized in Jesus Name FOR the remission of sins is UNBELIEF! The do NOT believe the Apostle's message. Rev.21:8

[Steve Epley]

A couple of different opinions here among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals

1. Some believe the 120 were saved under the Old Covenant and then on the Day of Pentecost they were baptized in the Spirit (born of the Spirit) and then they all got baptized in water (born of the Spirit) so they were saved under the New Covenant.

2. Others believe the 120 plus 380 other believers were already saved because they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and had been His disciples (some since the beginning of His ministry), and then 120 of them received an enduement of power, a special anointing of the Holy Spirit called the promise of the Father on the Day of Pentecost.

At Pentecost all 120 were born of the Spirit. The HGB is the Spirit birth. Jn.3:8

[*AQuietPlace*]

A couple of different opinions here among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals

1. Some believe the 120 were saved under the Old Covenant and then on the Day of Pentecost they were baptized in the Spirit (born of the Spirit) and then they all got baptized in water (born of the Spirit) so they were saved under the New Covenant.

2. Others believe the 120 plus 380 other believers were already saved because they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and had been His disciples (some since the beginning of His ministry), and then 120 of them received an enduement of power, a special anointing of the Holy Spirit called the promise of the Father on the Day of Pentecost.
But if your view is #1, then I don't see how they could have been saved at that point, because it was after Jesus' crucifixion, so the New Covenant had already begun, right?

If after Jesus' crucifixion the plan of salvation became baptism in His name, and speaking in tongues, then they could not have been saved at that point.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Hypothedicals are fun some time BUT NO one died. And they were COMMANDED to wait for the promise. Acts 1:4-5, Luke 24:49.
Okay, hypotheticals aside.... while they were sitting there waiting, were they unsaved?

[Steve Epley]

Okay, hypotheticals aside.... while they were sitting there waiting, were they unsaved?

They were NOT born again UNTIL they recieved the Spirit. However they did have all that was available at the time and were doing what he told them to do.

[Adino]

YES a man will be condemned though his sins were forgiven at Calvary BECAUSE he must accept the forgiveness.
The United States court system had a similar case years ago a convict by the name of Wilson recieved a pardon from President Andrew Jackson however he refused the pardon. This went up the court chain and every court ruled he was pardoned thus he MUST be released however when his case came before the Supreme Court the Justice in his wisdom ruled " a pardon is NOT a pardon unless accepted by the one being pardoned." A pardon cannot be forced on anyone they can either accept or reject.
On Passover night the faith to slay the Lamb was one thing to apply the shed blood was another. To have faith in the shed blood in that night meant to apply the blood AS PRESCRIBED.
I contend though YOU have faith in the slain Lamb historically YOU MUST apply the blood as PRESCRIBED!
That prescription is Acts 2:38.And I contend that the blood was applied to the altar of heaven at Calvary. The sins were removed forever from before the eyes of God when Christ died. Though the sin of man has been adequately dealt with on the Cross man remains spiritually dead until his heart is brought to life by the Spirit of God at the moment of faith. He that believes is passed from death unto life (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26). He came that we might have life and that life comes when we place our trust in his finished sin remitting work on Calvary.

Thank you for finally saying the following:

"I contend though YOU have faith in the slain Lamb historically YOU MUST apply the blood as PRESCRIBED!"
You finally admit there is a difference between having "faith" and your prescription for applying the blood.

Take to heart that the person who has faith: “is not condemned” (John 3:18; 5:24), “hath everlasting life” (John 3:15-16, 36; 6:40,47; 11:26), “is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24; 11:25), “dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1John 3:23-24), “shall never thirst” (John 6:35), “is doing the work of God” (John 6:29), “overcometh the world” (1John 5:5), “hath the witness (the Spirit) in himself” (1John 5:10), “is justified of all things” (Acts 13:39), “his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5), “shall not be ashamed” (Romans 9:33), “receives the privilege of sonship” (John 1:12), “is born of God” (1John 5:1; John 1:12-13).

Those who follow your 'prescription' are already believers enjoying the spiritual benefits of having faith in Christ.

Hey Steve, I recently sent a letter out to about 1100 Oneness ministers across the nation. Are you interested? In fact, I might just post it on the board to see the responses it engenders.

I'll give you the last word here. Thanks for reminding me of old times! :thumbsup

[Adino]

Steve, now that I look at the article, I think it is too long to post on this forum.

Excerpted from the article:
Brethren, the reason for this letter is to spark a closer look at the validity of the 'water and Spirit' New Birth doctrine. This mailing has been sent out to over 1100 Oneness recipients. Included are district officials of many states, faculty of Oneness colleges, scores of churches from a variety of organizations, and hundreds of ministers across America.

In the hope that we all continually yearn for sound doctrine I ask whether you have objectively considered the following theological implications of the 'water and Spirit' New Birth teaching:

Then the summary:

When objectively examined, the ‘water and Spirit’ New Birth doctrine:

1. Implies a man can be simultaneously justified and condemned.

2. Implies a man can be simultaneously IN and OUT of Christ.

3. Implies a man does not need the Holy Ghost in order to be risen with Christ.

4. Implies a man can be in possession of "that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance" (Ephesians 1:13-14) before he is considered to be a fully born heir.

5. Implies a man can be in possession of that Spirit by which he cries Abba, Father (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6) before he is considered to be a fully born child of God.

6. Implies a man can be simultaneously spiritually alive and spiritually dead; simultaneously united with God and separated from God.

7. Implies there was no need for the Cross!
Another excerpt:
Friends, it has been suggested the aforementioned implications are only temporal realities while a man goes through a 'process of spiritual new birth.' I must quickly point out that a theological impossibility is impossible even for a moment.

In all sincerity, can the 'water and spirit' New Birth doctrine, which currently has absolutely no historical witness prior to its introduction in early 20th century American Oneness Pentecostalism, honestly, be judged theologically sound? Did Oneness pioneers adequately think through their innovative teachings on the New Birth? Did they come to terms with the inherent implications? More importantly, have we sufficiently reconciled the theological implications of our inherited New Birth position or have we accepted it without question?
Anyone interested can private message me an email address and I'll shoot over the article. The responses were very interesting.

God bless you all!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Is anything too long to post here? ;) I've seen some very long articles, divided into 4 or 5 posts. I'd love to see the article posted here.

I'd also like to know what type of response you got.

[Adino]

Is anything too long to post here? ;) I've seen some very long articles, divided into 4 or 5 posts. I'd love to see the article posted here.

I'd also like to know what type of response you got.Out of all the responses I received, only one actually addressed the implications. That, in and of itself, was very telling. Most simply ignored the implications and resorted to preaching to me the 'water and spirit' position as if I'd never heard it before.

One interesting respondent told me I would burn in hell and that my parents would most likely bury me before I buried them...... :hmmm Love it when people let their true spirit shine.

[*AQuietPlace*]

One interesting respondent told me I would burn in hell and that my parents would most likely bury me before I buried them...... :hmmm Love it when people let their true spirit shine.
LOL.

It's frustrating when people don't respond with reason but just throw out hyperbole.

[*AQuietPlace*]

This is probably a topic for a different thread, but why are Oneness Pentecostals some of the worst for disliking a challenge to their beliefs? In many circles, if you simply question you are in rebellion. I just don't get that. If it's truth, it'll stand questioning.

I admire Bro. Epley for being one of the ones who will at least discuss it. ;)

[Adino]

This is probably a topic for a different thread, but why are Oneness Pentecostals some of the worst for disliking a challenge to their beliefs? In many circles, if you simply question you are in rebellion. I just don't get that. If it's truth, it'll stand questioning.

I admire Bro. Epley for being one of the ones who will at least discuss it. ;)LOL........ Steve has mellowed out over the years. I too appreciate his discussion.

[Sam]

They were NOT born again UNTIL they recieved the Spirit. However they did have all that was available at the time and were doing what he told them to do.

careful there, Elder.
That sounds like the Light Doctrine.

Just kidding

[Sam]

Hypothedicals are fun some time BUT NO one died. And they were COMMANDED to wait for the promise. Acts 1:4-5, Luke 24:49.

Folk singer Joan Baez said one time that her mother told her that a hypothetical lion is much more dangerous than a real lion.

[Aquila]

Here is what I believe to be the settling question for the issue...

Are believers commanded to be water baptized? Yes or No?

[clgustaveson]

Here is what I believe to be the settling question for the issue...

Are believers commanded to be water baptized? Yes or No?

I know I have just been sitting back and watching this argument progress but this question is not the point!

The question is not whether or not some statement has been construed to mean we should water baptize... the real settling question is whether it is essential unto salvation... if it is then we must be commanded to do so or parish.

I think all this arguing over whether it is right or wrong or even whether it is a good thing or not has nothing to do with the underlying issue because at the end of the day Jesus commanding individuals to baptize with water doesn't mean that is an essential component of salvation.

[Falla39]

Here is what I believe to be the settling question for the issue...

Are believers commanded to be water baptized? Yes or No?

YES!!

Peter in Acts 10, preaching to Cornelius house,:

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Falla39

[clgustaveson]

YES!!

Peter in Acts 10, preaching to Cornelius house,:

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Falla39

While I still would argue this doesn't imply baptism being essential to salvation... I still have to ask, what do you think that means? Do you think that means he is commanding everyone to be baptized for salvation?

If so I think you are implying far too much.

[HopePreacher]

Who did Peter command? did he command those that God had already accepted (v47) to be baptized, or was he commanding those Jews who were with him that were apparently balking at accepting the Gentiles?

I believe Peter was addressing the Jews who came with him based upon the statement/question he asked of them, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" (v47). It was the Jews he was commanding and he was telling them they needed to get over it and baptize these Gentiles.

[clgustaveson]

Who did Peter command? did he command those that God had already accepted (v47) to be baptized, or was he commanding those Jews who were with him that were apparently balking at accepting the Gentiles?

I believe Peter was addressing the Jews who came with him based upon the statement/question he asked of them, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" (v47). It was the Jews he was commanding and he was telling them they needed to get over it and baptize these Gentiles.

Why would he command them if it wasn't necessary?

[Aquila]

Let's assume that water baptism isn't "essential for salvation".

This would mean that God forgives and saves a repentant believer at the moment of repentance. Now, let's not forget that water baptism is a command in Scripture. This would mean that the moment that believer chooses to attend a church that doesn't practice baptism, or flat out refuses to be baptized, they are in rebellion in regards to a clear command of Scripture. This means they are now backslidden at best. They never moved forward into obedience. Just like person that repents at the altar on a Sunday night and goes home only to continue living in sin with a person who isn't their spouse. Obedience is essential. Lack of obedience demonstrates that a person doesn't have saving faith.

If water baptism is a command - it is essential no matter how you cut it... even if God forgives and initially saves a person at repentance.

[HopePreacher]

The point I was making is that he was not commanding that household of Cornelius submit to baptism he was commanding that the Jews who were with him accept the Gentiles and baptize them.

There was no problem with the Gentiles who were just baptized in the HS to go on to baptism - they would stand on their head in the corner if they were asked to, just like anyone who is freshly baptized with HS - However, those Jews who were steeped in the tradition of Jewish exclusivism needed convincing to accept the Gentiles.

In fact, the emphasis on this baptism was not the effect it had on the Gentiles but the effect it had on the Jewish believers. Peter not only argued the point here but he also argued in front of the elders in chapter 11:17-18, "If God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who beleided in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" When they heard this they had no further objections and praised God.

Peter's argument was real simple: If God has accepted them, then why shouldn't we accept them? So he ordered those who were with him to baptize them.

[Falla39]

Something I thought about recently in reading all the different views on the plan of
salvation.
Before a children is born, there is a prep...a ration stage before the child comes forth
from the womb. The mother is cleansed, and prior to the baby coming forth, there is a burst of water and blood and the baby comes forth. It has been born.
Now in being born again, the cleansing could represent repentance, and the water
and blood (from Jesus' side came forth water AND blood. Then the Holy Ghost could
be represented when the "newborn" gives a certain sound. A sound of life.

There is the stage of preparation. If this represents repentance, the mother got prepared
or cleaned up BUT there was no birth. No water or Spirit.

Just some thoughts from a Mother in Zion.

Falla39

[Hoovie]

Though I believe one can be saved prior to water baptism, I agree with Aquila - if one rejects baptism in water he is in rebellion to scripture.

[Aquila]

I know I have just been sitting back and watching this argument progress but this question is not the point!

The question is not whether or not some statement has been construed to mean we should water baptize... the real settling question is whether it is essential unto salvation... if it is then we must be commanded to do so or parish.

I think all this arguing over whether it is right or wrong or even whether it is a good thing or not has nothing to do with the underlying issue because at the end of the day Jesus commanding individuals to baptize with water doesn't mean that is an essential component of salvation.

Is water baptism something commanded in Scripture? Yes or no?

A one word answer please.

[Aquila]

Though I believe one can be saved prior to water baptism, I agree with Aquila - if one rejects baptism in water he is in rebellion to scripture.

Amen.

[Falla39]

Why take a chance! The Bible speaks in Acts 2: 41, of those that gladly received his words were baptized. In my 51 yrs of having the Holy Ghost, I don't remember ever hearing of so much squabbling about whether you have to or what. And it's not the non-pentecostal people doing it. It seems to be the ones who should know better. There is something really bad wrong.

I do not mean that in an offensive way but it is disturbing.

Falla39

[Hoovie]

The good news is... there is only a very small sliver of Christianity that does not teach and practice water baptism.

[clgustaveson]

Is water baptism something commanded in Scripture? Yes or no?

A one word answer please.

The question is rather vague and an answer would illicit an assumption I think is unfair to make...

Simply because the scripture says individuals were commanded to be baptize does not mean we are all commissioned to obey the same command. The command does not say " to be saved" or "in order to be saved" or even "as a part of salvation" I command you to be baptized...

Simply saying water baptism is command is missing the entire thesis of my question... Is baptism essential to be saved?

Don't play a game of cat and mouse with words, as I have shown I have not found scripture convincing enough to sway me either way but I sure won't risk my salvation by not being baptized and in the same light I wont risk it by telling people they are damned to hell with out it... you can have that on your hands if you like but do you really want to risk your salvation over judging the works of God hinging your own judgment upon semantics?

God bless you, but I am not so bold as you, I find myself being a little more conservative in my interpretation of God's word.

[clgustaveson]

The good news is... there is only a very small sliver of Christianity that does not teach and practice water baptism.

However the largest portion believe it to not be essential...

[Aquila]

The question is rather vague and an answer would illicit an assumption I think is unfair to make...

Simply because the scripture says individuals were commanded to be baptize does not mean we are all commissioned to obey the same command. The command does not say " to be saved" or "in order to be saved" or even "as a part of salvation" I command you to be baptized...

Simply saying water baptism is command is missing the entire thesis of my question... Is baptism essential to be saved?

Don't play a game of cat and mouse with words, as I have shown I have not found scripture convincing enough to sway me either way but I sure won't risk my salvation by not being baptized and in the same light I wont risk it by telling people they are damned to hell with out it... you can have that on your hands if you like but do you really want to risk your salvation over judging the works of God hinging your own judgment upon semantics?

God bless you, but I am not so bold as you, I find myself being a little more conservative in my interpretation of God's word.

I don't relegate anyone to Hell simply because they weren't baptized. Most know that about me. My angle is this... God can forgive who he desires to forgive. Baptism isn't our savior... Jesus is.

Now, I can respect the idea that God forgives sin at repentance. That would explain why so many people get the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism. However, baptism is part of the great commission. Any church that doesn't water baptize people is in direct rebellion against their clear commission from Christ. That is a damnable sin. Such a church is backslidden and in need of sincere repentance. Any believer in a church that does water baptize who refuses to be water baptized is in rebellion against Christ's clear command. The Jews were water baptized at Pentecost in Acts 2, the Samaritans were water baptized in Acts 8, and the Gentiles of Cornelius' home were water baptized in Acts 10. This is a command for all believers. I know some believe that sins are actually washed away or remitted by the waters of baptism. My last pastor told me that my sins were washed down the drain when the baptismal tank was drained. Today, I don't believe that. However, just as Communion is a memorial commemorating Christ's death (the broken bread representing his broken body and the wine his shed blood) baptism commemorates his burial and associates us with his burial and resurrection. If one refuses to be water baptized... even if their sins were initially forgiven at repentance, that person is refusing to obey Jesus, therefore they are in the sin of rebellion. We can debate all night long as to what role baptism serves... but we have to agree, spiritual rebellion will land one in Hell.

(*Please note, I don't condemn those who have been water baptized in traditional fashion because they didn't know that it was originally done in Jesus name. - I believe God sees their desire to be obedient. - Nor do I condemn those who for some reason cannot be water baptized. My contention is with the average, healthy, everyday believer who will not be water baptized or the minister who refuses to obey his commission.)

So now let me ask you yet again,

Do you believe that water baptism is a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

Please provide a one word answer.

[HopePreacher]

Why take a chance! The Bible speaks in Acts 2: 41, of those that gladly received his words were baptized. In my 51 yrs of having the Holy Ghost, I don't remember ever hearing of so much squabbling about whether you have to or what. And it's not the non-pentecostal people doing it. It seems to be the ones who should know better. There is something really bad wrong.

I do not mean that in an offensive way but it is disturbing.

Falla39

I agree with much that has been said in recent posts to this thread. The scripture is clear that it was the practice of the church to baptize new believers. Jesus did instruct his disciples to baptize, Peter instructed people to be baptized, and that pattern has been followed in the church ever since. Some have taught that you are saved then baptized as a testimony to that salvation, others are taught that you are not saved until you ae baptized - the point is that they all baptize people into Christ.

A concern I have is that we begin sowing doubt in people with questions like, "Why take a chance?" It is like we are saying, "well, you can't really be sure of your salvation so do everything you can just to be safe."

If we follow that argument we would conclude that we should be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as Jesus commanded, just to be safe.

We could also conclude that if we are dealing with lust we should pluck out our eyes like Jesus said, just to be safe.

Actually, I feel pretty safe because I have believed on him and he gave me the power to become a son of God (John 1:12). I have done what the Jailer did in Acts 16, I have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. I feel pretty safe and secure in my relationship with the Lord, that is why I followed him in baptism and that is why I baptize others, Just as Peter saw that baptism was a sign that the church had accepted what God had done in the new believer (Acts 10:47, 11:17).

I do enjoy these discussion where we have the freedom to express our understanding of the word of God.... thanks for the opportunity.

[Falla39]

If Jesus said we must be born again of water and the Spirit, I believe we MUST!
Just prior to his ascension, Jesus appeared to his disciples. I believe he wanted
to make sure they understood what they were to do. In Luke 24 we read:

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever.

Could the truth of God's Word be lost because of allowing some to convince
us that the Word didn't mean what it said!

Darkness comes when there is an absence of light! Truth can be lost when
those who once had the truth failed to proclaim it!! While we have the Light
(Christ in you, the Hope of glory) we must walk in it. We as individuals and
adults have the choice to believe what we choose. If our gospel be hid, it is
hid to those that are lost. They can't lead when they are lost themselves.

The generations that went before me, proclaimed it to us from generation to
generation. I do not intend to allow someone to steal our spiritual inherit-
ance from my family. It is too precious to take lightly or half heartily. It cost
those who perserved it thus far. I'm speaking about truth of the NT plan of
salvation in HIS BLOOD. The Truth that sets men/women free from the law of
sin and death. Perhaps some today don't appreciate the truth because it didn't
cost them anything. Many times those things freely given are not appreciated be-
cause they received it by inheritance. It cost them nothing. But it's not over.
It may yet cost. IN the first century many lost their lives for the gospel we
have today. God help us to stay on our knees until the light of truth shines
through loud and clear once again. My late father once said, "If we don't teach
our children what we want them to know, someone will teach them something
we don't want them to know. He was concerned because he had eleven of
us following behind him. He took us to be his person responsibility. Thank you,
Daddy!

The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom, knowledge and understanding!
The fear of man bringeth a snare (trap). The respectful, revential fear of the Lord
needs to be taught early. In those formative years. Someone has failed some-
where down the line. God have mercy on this generaton and the succeeding
ones, in Jesus Name.

I don't say these things for offense. We can do what we will, but God brought
judgment on a generation that would not listen and obey. The nation of Israel
time and time again turned from folowing the One True and Living God and there
came and end to their unfaithfulness. And God is no respector of persons.

Blessings,

Falla39

[Adino]

Do you believe that water baptism is a command of Scripture? Yes or no?YES.

Is participation in communion and foot washing as essential? Each were admonished by Christ. In fact, all good works are admonished by God. No one denies that we are created UNTO good works, whatever that work might be (Ephesians 2:10). BUT, no one should deny that we are first and foremost newly created. The good works are by-products of the new creation not cause of it.

This thread is coming down to the question of meritorious salvation. Do our good works perpetuate our justified status before God?

If one holds that they DO then they will say baptism, communion, foot washing, never having an evil thought, wholly living above anything God would deem sin, is the only way to KEEP one's salvation. Such a person must trust in what he does or does not do to be saved. He trusts in that work God is performing in him via the power of the Spirit.

On the other hand, if one understands our good works DO NOT perpetuate our justified status before God then baptism, communion, foot washing, or the continual performance of any good work, though it may have lofty purpose, becomes secondary and non-saving. Such a person retains the finished work of Christ as the object of his faith. This person realizes he can never be 'good enough' to merit salvation so he rests from his dead works and fully trusts in a righteousness apart from his own for his justified status before God. Rather than having faith in what God is doing in himself, he has faith in what God already did in Christ for him on the Cross.

The former position is that of Catholicism, while the latter is Protestant.

Click here to find out which idealogy (http://www.inchristalone.org/CathOrProt.html) you more closely adhere to.

[Falla39]

Who did Peter command? did he command those that God had already accepted (v47) to be baptized, or was he commanding those Jews who were with him that were apparently balking at accepting the Gentiles?

I believe Peter was addressing the Jews who came with him based upon the statement/question he asked of them, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" (v47). It was the Jews he was commanding and he was telling them they needed to get over it and baptize these Gentiles.


The Jews heard the Word first. Jesus came to his own first, but to those unbelieving Jews that would not hear, Paul explains in Acts 13:

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

51 But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.

52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.


No offense.

Falla39

[HopePreacher]

Dear Sister FAlla39;

You keep saying in your posts, "no offense" and I keep looking for something that someone should, or even could, be offended at and I find nothing to offend.

You wrote: "If Jesus said we must be born again of water and the Spirit, I believe we MUST! Just prior to his ascension, Jesus appeared to his disciples. I believe he wanted to make sure they understood what they were to do." - I believe this just the way Jesus explained it to Nicodemus; Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." There is only one new birth and that is the spiritual birth of which Jesus spoke.


You wrote: "I'm speaking about truth of the NT plan of
salvation in HIS BLOOD. The Truth that sets men/women free from the law of
sin and death. Perhaps some today don't appreciate the truth because it didn't cost them anything" - I agree with that statement 100%; we must never surrender faith in the effect of the shed blood of Christ. It is the only parpitiation for our sins and through faith in the finished work of Calvary we are reconciled to God. That is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

It is true that the truth of God in Christ reconciling the world to himself has cost much to many who have followed him and for some it has cost even their lives. We will join with saints who have through the centuries contended for the truth of salvation through faith in the shed blood of Christ even to the point of persecution, suffering and even death.

Be blessed faithful servant of God.

[Falla39]

Dear Sister FAlla39;

You keep saying in your posts, "no offense" and I keep looking for something that someone should, or even could, be offended at and I find nothing to offend.

You wrote: "If Jesus said we must be born again of water and the Spirit, I believe we MUST! Just prior to his ascension, Jesus appeared to his disciples. I believe he wanted to make sure they understood what they were to do." - I believe this just the way Jesus explained it to Nicodemus; Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." There is only one new birth and that is the spiritual birth of which Jesus spoke.


You wrote: "I'm speaking about truth of the NT plan of
salvation in HIS BLOOD. The Truth that sets men/women free from the law of
sin and death. Perhaps some today don't appreciate the truth because it didn't cost them anything" - I agree with that statement 100%; we must never surrender faith in the effect of the shed blood of Christ. It is the only parpitiation for our sins and through faith in the finished work of Calvary we are reconciled to God. That is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

It is true that the truth of God in Christ reconciling the world to himself has cost much to many who have followed him and for some it has cost even their lives. We will join with saints who have through the centuries contended for the truth of salvation through faith in the shed blood of Christ even to the point of persecution, suffering and even death.

Be blessed faithful servant of God.

Dear Brother HopePreacher,
You are not the first to mention about me including "No offense" or
No offense intended in my posts! Prov. 18:19 states that a brother
offended is harder to be won than a strong city.
I endeavor by the grace of God to speak the truth in love. Lest I
should come across as offfensive, I add that to show that although
I am very serious about my words, I am not saying them to offend
my brother or sister or anyone else. I have heard words from well-
meaning people that said some good things and spoke truth but the
manner in which they spoke those words, etc. didn't sound like some-
one "speaking the truth in love". I would always hope to speak the
truth in love. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost!:heart

Blessings,

Falla39

[Sam]

Is water baptism something commanded in Scripture? Yes or no?

A one word answer please.

often

[Antipas]

YES.

Is participation in communion and foot washing as essential? Each were admonished by Christ. In fact, all good works are admonished by God. No one denies that we are created UNTO good works, whatever that work might be (Ephesians 2:10). BUT, no one should deny that we are first and foremost newly created. The good works are by-products of the new creation not cause of it.

This thread is coming down to the question of meritorious salvation. Do our good works perpetuate our justified status before God?

If one holds that they DO then they will say baptism, communion, foot washing, never having an evil thought, wholly living above anything God would deem sin, is the only way to KEEP one's salvation. Such a person must trust in what he does or does not do to be saved. He trusts in that work God is performing in him via the power of the Spirit.

On the other hand, if one understands our good works DO NOT perpetuate our justified status before God then baptism, communion, foot washing, or the continual performance of any good work, though it may have lofty purpose, becomes secondary and non-saving. Such a person retains the finished work of Christ as the object of his faith. This person realizes he can never be 'good enough' to merit salvation so he rests from his dead works and fully trusts in a righteousness apart from his own for his justified status before God. Rather than having faith in what God is doing in himself, he has faith in what God already did in Christ for him on the Cross.

The former position is that of Catholicism, while the latter is Protestant.

Click here to find out which idealogy (http://www.inchristalone.org/CathOrProt.html) you more closely adhere to.

Communion... don't get me started on it. The way we do it in our Apostolic churches is Catholic and not what the Bible prescribes. But, let's move on. Communion today is essentially a sacrament of the church for obedient and faithful believers to partake in "as often as yet eat". That's not on par with the Great Commission which was a clear command of Christ prior to his ascension. In military terms, the Great Commission was the last lawful order issued by Christ on earth. So water baptism cannot be entirely compared to communion.

Rather you believe sins are forgiven at repentance or by the waters of baptism... it is a command to be obeyed. Those who do not - do so at their own peril.

[RevDWW]

Act 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
Act 22:13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
Act 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Seems Ananias, commanded of the Lord , preached to Saul this message of baptize for remittance.

[Adino]

Seems Ananias, commanded of the Lord , preached to Saul this message of baptize for remittance.
Seems Ananias told Saul to wash away his own sins. It was Paul's own conscience of sin which needed to be purged, not his sins before God. Paul's sins had been remitted in God's eyes on Calvary.

[Hoovie]

However the largest portion believe it to not be essential...

Oh I think not. I believe most all of them would believe water baptism to be an essential component of Christian initiation into the church. To varying degrees of course, but nevertheless an essential, sacred and holy rite of passage.

[Aquila]

Seems Ananias, commanded of the Lord , preached to Saul this message of baptize for remittance.

I think you should look closely at the verse. Notice what Ananias actually says...

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)


Ananias tells Paul to arise, and be baptized, AND wash away his sins, calling (or rather by calling) on the name of the Lord. Emphasis in the sentence structure is upon Paul's calling upon the name of the Lord. Hence while Paul was clearly commanded to be baptized... his sins were washed away based upon his calling upon the name of the Lord.

This goes back to something I stated earlier. You will NOT find a baptismal formula in the NT. You never read the exact words spoken over a single person being water baptized. All you read is that the believers were baptized in the name of (or in the authority of) the Lord Jesus. The case here with the words of Ananias demonstrates something VERY important that most seem to miss... it wasn't the baptizer calling on the name of the Lord for the washing away of sins (as with some ritualized formula)... it was the baptizee (Paul) who was commanded to call upon the name of the Lord at his baptism for the washing away of sins.

Therefore, it's my conclusion that there isn't a baptismal "formula" per se. It doesn't matter what a preacher says over you when you're water baptized - if YOU are not calling on the name of Jesus for forgiveness. You can have 100 Apostolic preachers screaming the name of Jesus over a baptismal candidate... but if that individual candidate isn't calling on the name (as Paul was commanded to) they just got wet. Likewise, it doesn't matter if 100 Trinitarian preachers are muttering trinity gibberish over a person at their baptism... if that individual person is sincerely calling out to the name of Jesus the washing away of sins occurs. It's the result of their calling on the name of the Lord, not some preacher.

Too many of us Oneness Apostolics treat our formula like it's some kind of ritual magic and we have the right wording so it's supposedly better than the Trinitarian formula. We act like it's the words of a preacher (a man) that wash away sins. It's not magic. What's the difference between the Trinitarian Catholic who invests their priests with the same supposed authority? It does violence to the importance of the name and the individual's faith as they cry out for forgiveness. It's the same ol' girl different dress. The issue isn't the words spoken like some ritual... the issue is; is the person being baptized calling on the Lord's name for remission??? If so... no devil in Hell, or muttered tradition, can stop the grace of God.

Therefore I believe that the BIBLICAL method would be to stand the candidate in the water (if practicing immersion) and pray with them, having THEM call on the name of Jesus, and then take them under (or pour if you believe in pouring). The name has to be invoked by the individual for them to receive salvation... not the preacher. The preacher is just guiding them.

This is why I believe that the current institutionalized Apostolic church is just as wrong about "formulas" as the Trinitarians.

[Aquila]

Seems Ananias told Saul to wash away his own sins. It was Paul's own conscience of sin which needed to be purged, not his sins before God. Paul's sins had been remitted in God's eyes on Calvary.

Get real. Aninias told Paul to be baptized, and wash away his sins, (that comma essentially means "by") calling upon the name of the Lord. First, Ananias speaks in the future tense. The washing away of sins was to be when Paul called upon the name of the Lord. Second, it wasn't the water that was to wash Paul's sins away... it was to be Paul's own calling upon the name of the Lord.

Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[clgustaveson]

Oh I think not. I believe most all of them would believe water baptism to be an essential component of Christian initiation into the church. To varying degrees of course, but nevertheless an essential, sacred and holy rite of passage.

That is not the question, nobody is debating it being a cornerstone action to be a member of the church, it is whether or not it is an essential component of salvation MOST denominations would disagree with as well as many churches.

[clgustaveson]

I don't relegate anyone to Hell simply because they weren't baptized. Most know that about me. My angle is this... God can forgive who he desires to forgive. Baptism isn't our savior... Jesus is.

Now, I can respect the idea that God forgives sin at repentance. That would explain why so many people get the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism. However, baptism is part of the great commission. Any church that doesn't water baptize people is in direct rebellion against their clear commission from Christ. That is a damnable sin. Such a church is backslidden and in need of sincere repentance. Any believer in a church that does water baptize who refuses to be water baptized is in rebellion against Christ's clear command. The Jews were water baptized at Pentecost in Acts 2, the Samaritans were water baptized in Acts 8, and the Gentiles of Cornelius' home were water baptized in Acts 10. This is a command for all believers. I know some believe that sins are actually washed away or remitted by the waters of baptism. My last pastor told me that my sins were washed down the drain when the baptismal tank was drained. Today, I don't believe that. However, just as Communion is a memorial commemorating Christ's death (the broken bread representing his broken body and the wine his shed blood) baptism commemorates his burial and associates us with his burial and resurrection. If one refuses to be water baptized... even if their sins were initially forgiven at repentance, that person is refusing to obey Jesus, therefore they are in the sin of rebellion. We can debate all night long as to what role baptism serves... but we have to agree, spiritual rebellion will land one in Hell.

(*Please note, I don't condemn those who have been water baptized in traditional fashion because they didn't know that it was originally done in Jesus name. - I believe God sees their desire to be obedient. - Nor do I condemn those who for some reason cannot be water baptized. My contention is with the average, healthy, everyday believer who will not be water baptized or the minister who refuses to obey his commission.)

So now let me ask you yet again,

Do you believe that water baptism is a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

Please provide a one word answer.

By great commission are you referring to Matthew 28?

I am not answering your pointless question because you still haven't answered mine, I think you are playing a game with words and you are dancing around making dangerous accusations.

[Adino]

...that comma essentially means "by"...LOL.....Arise BY and being baptized BY and wash away thy sins BY calling on the name of the Lord.

I agree the conscience was purged by faith alone in Christ alone, but that is all.

Back to work today. God bless.

[Aquila]

By great commission are you referring to Matthew 28?

The Great Commission is found in Matthew28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and Acts 1. And yes, baptism is mentioned in both Matthew and Mark; and alluded to in Luke 24. It is implimented in Acts 2 and contains water baptism.

I am not answering your pointless question because you still haven't answered mine,

My apologies, perhaps I misunderstood your question. Could you ask it again, I'll gladly answer it.

I think you are playing a game with words and you are dancing around making dangerous accusations.

lol

I'm typing pretty plain English here and I'm drawing a conclusion based in implication which is the result of critical thinking. And I've offered no accusations toward anyone. I have indicated that those who do not baptize or who will not be baptized are in direct rebellion in relation to Christ's commission. That's common sense, not an accusation. I was military. If a commanded issued a command... it is to be obeyed. Choosing to disobey a lawful order in time of war is a serious offense.

So now let me ask you yet again,

Do you believe that water baptism is a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

Please provide a one word answer.

[LUKE2447]

I don't relegate anyone to Hell simply because they weren't baptized. Most know that about me. My angle is this... God can forgive who he desires to forgive. Baptism isn't our savior... Jesus is.

Now, I can respect the idea that God forgives sin at repentance. That would explain why so many people get the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism. However, baptism is part of the great commission. Any church that doesn't water baptize people is in direct rebellion against their clear commission from Christ. That is a damnable sin. Such a church is backslidden and in need of sincere repentance. Any believer in a church that does water baptize who refuses to be water baptized is in rebellion against Christ's clear command. The Jews were water baptized at Pentecost in Acts 2, the Samaritans were water baptized in Acts 8, and the Gentiles of Cornelius' home were water baptized in Acts 10. This is a command for all believers. I know some believe that sins are actually washed away or remitted by the waters of baptism. My last pastor told me that my sins were washed down the drain when the baptismal tank was drained. Today, I don't believe that. However, just as Communion is a memorial commemorating Christ's death (the broken bread representing his broken body and the wine his shed blood) baptism commemorates his burial and associates us with his burial and resurrection. If one refuses to be water baptized... even if their sins were initially forgiven at repentance, that person is refusing to obey Jesus, therefore they are in the sin of rebellion. We can debate all night long as to what role baptism serves... but we have to agree, spiritual rebellion will land one in Hell.

(*Please note, I don't condemn those who have been water baptized in traditional fashion because they didn't know that it was originally done in Jesus name. - I believe God sees their desire to be obedient. - Nor do I condemn those who for some reason cannot be water baptized. My contention is with the average, healthy, everyday believer who will not be water baptized or the minister who refuses to obey his commission.)

So now let me ask you yet again,

Do you believe that water baptism is a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

Please provide a one word answer.

That is because you have a improper understanding of what standing is before God in repentance is. It allows you to come to the alter properly to present yourself. All repentance looked to the cross or in the post D,B,R back to your realization of it in baptism or in the case of the sinner to a future realization and event in his life. It brings the past act of Christ into your present. All God has to have to fill you with his Spirit is a heart turned toward him that is not at enmity with him(faith). Has nothing to with whether you've sinned in the past. Does not mean you are in covenant yet either as you are placed in Christ at baptism when you realize his Death/sacrifice/blood and you are pardoned.

[Aquila]

LOL.....Arise BY and being baptized BY and wash away thy sins BY calling on the name of the Lord.

I agree the conscience was purged by faith alone in Christ alone, but that is all.

Back to work today. God bless.

Someone needs a basic English lesson. Here's the text,


"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

Here's an exegesis of the sentence,

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, [by] calling on the name of the Lord."

The comma takes the place of "by" and without it the sentence would read,

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins by calling on the name of the Lord."

While Paul was clearly commanded to be baptized, his sins were washed away as a result of his calling upon the name of the Lord.

[LUKE2447]

Someone needs a basic English lesson. Here's the text,


"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

Here's an exegesis of the sentence,

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, [by] calling on the name of the Lord."

The comma takes the place of "by" and without it the sentence would read,

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins by calling on the name of the Lord."

While Paul was clearly commanded to be baptized, his sins were washed away as a result of his calling upon the name of the Lord.

YES, BUT WHILE BEING BAPTIZED OR IN BAPTISM! THUS he is seeking God to do so in that which represents the DEATH/SACRIFICE/BLOOD of Christ's atonement. Who's authority is he calling on by faith? JESUS the one who died for him and has all power and authority! THe calling on the name of the Lord and baptism are seen as synonymous in relationship.

[HopePreacher]

One of the things that intrigues me is that we discuss issues like the necessity of baptism and what formula is necessary etc. and our discussions are based upon how each one of us interprets certain passages. I know that it is important for each of us to be convinced in our own mind according to the way God reveals himself to us through his word; but - I am concerned that I view your understanding without consideration of what the application of your view or understanding produces.

Let me explain what I mean. When people come to Christ their life is radically changed. Waht ever church or ministry group that influenced them to come to God, their genuine conversion experience produces a radical change in their life. That to me is the crucial point. We can argue that their sin is not forgiven until they are baptized, but the evidence is that they heard, they believed and they confessed and they received.

When I put the experience of a changed life up against the matrix of the word of God as I understand it I see a conssistency that cannot be refuted.

I often tell people when training them for evangelism that the most powerful witness they have is their testimony of how God has changed their life.

Let's keep the dialogue open, but let us not forget that on both sides of this issue there is the witness of changed lives.

[LUKE2447]

One of the things that intrigues me is that we discuss issues like the necessity of baptism and what formula is necessary etc. and our discussions are based upon how each one of us interprets certain passages. I know that it is important for each of us to be convinced in our own mind according to the way God reveals himself to us through his word; but - I am concerned that I view your understanding without consideration of what the application of your view or understanding produces.

Let me explain what I mean. When people come to Christ their life is radically changed. Waht ever church or ministry group that influenced them to come to God, their genuine conversion experience produces a radical change in their life. That to me is the crucial point. We can argue that their sin is not forgiven until they are baptized, but the evidence is that they heard, they believed and they confessed and they received.

When I put the experience of a changed life up against the matrix of the word of God as I understand it I see a conssistency that cannot be refuted.

I often tell people when training them for evangelism that the most powerful witness they have is their testimony of how God has changed their life.

Let's keep the dialogue open, but let us not forget that on both sides of this issue there is the witness of changed lives.

Purpose always radically changes people and their lifestyles and habits for the better or worse.

singed Ghandi, JW's, Mormons, Confucius, Muhammed, and any one else you would like to put in this line.

Shall we light a unity candle?

[Timmy]

Purpose always radically changes people and their lifestyles and habits for the better or worse.

singed Ghandi, JW's, Mormons, Confucius, Muhammed, and any one else you would like to put in this line.

Shall we light a unity candle?

Now yer talkin'!

:toofunny

[HopePreacher]

Purpose always radically changes people and their lifestyles and habits for the better or worse.

singed Ghandi, JW's, Mormons, Confucius, Muhammed, and any one else you would like to put in this line.

Shall we light a unity candle?

again, I am not sure of your point except to redicule someone who has sincerely sought the face of God on these issues and has arrived at scripturally sound conclusions.

I would only ask you to elaborate; If someone has placed their trust in the Jesus Christ as savior and have as a result of theier conversion their life has radically changed for the better, do you believe they are no different that the Buddhist or Muslim if they didn't get it your way?

[Aquila]

[QUOTE]

YES, BUT WHILE BEING BAPTIZED OR IN BAPTISM! THUS he is seeking God to do so in that which represents the DEATH/SACRIFICE/BLOOD of Christ's atonement. Who's authority is he calling on by faith? JESUS the one who died for him and has all power and authority! THe calling on the name of the Lord and baptism are seen as synonymous in relationship.

Agreed, it was the moment of baptism where the believer was to call on the name of Jesus for the washing away of sins. The water being an outward type, if you will, reflecting the spiritual cleansing being done by calling upon the name of Jesus.

However, even with that said... Oneness organizations like UPCI, ALJC, etc. all have a preacher calling on the name sacramentally. The Bible demonstrates that it's the candidate who is to call out the name. Therefore, there isn't a "formula" per se, this is about calling on the grace of God through Christ. Both the Trinitarians and Oneness organizations have become sacramentalists. In the beginning of our movement, many of our Pentecostal pioneers baptized themselves in the wonderful name. How? By doing what Paul did, calling on his name in the water. We've convinced a generation of Apostolics that their sins are forgiven because a preacher called on the name of Jesus for them when in fact it should have been they, themselves calling on that name when being baptized.

[LUKE2447]

[QUOTE=LUKE2447;760651]

Agreed, it was the moment of baptism where the believer was to call on the name of Jesus for the washing away of sins. The water being an outward type, if you will, reflecting the spiritual cleansing being done by calling upon the name of Jesus.

However, even with that said... Oneness organizations like UPCI, ALJC, etc. all have a preacher calling on the name sacramentally. The Bible demonstrates that it's the candidate who is to call out the name. Therefore, there isn't a "formula" per se, this is about calling on the grace of God through Christ. Both the Trinitarians and Oneness organizations have become sacramentalists. In the beginning of our movement, many of our Pentecostal pioneers baptized themselves in the wonderful name. How? By doing what Paul did, calling on his name in the water. We've convinced a generation of Apostolics that their sins are forgiven because a preacher called on the name of Jesus for them when in fact it should have been they, themselves calling on that name when being baptized.

You will not have me arguing against the individual calling on his name in baptism. I totaly agree with that. I see nothing wrong though with " agreement" as to that calling with the baptizer!

[LUKE2447]

again, I am not sure of your point except to redicule someone who has sincerely sought the face of God on these issues and has arrived at scripturally sound conclusions.

I would only ask you to elaborate; If someone has placed their trust in the Jesus Christ as savior and have as a result of theier conversion their life has radically changed for the better, do you believe they are no different that the Buddhist or Muslim if they didn't get it your way?

signed Oprah Winfrey

No seriously, I am not rediculing you but questioning you. Your point was in another thread that you looked at others and how they reacted to older saints trying to lead them (which can be good or bad) and made a decision with that and a few others. Everyone says they seek the face of God.... and that' why we have all these religions. Who's opinion that it is scripturally sound conclusions? Don't we all believe that for the most part.

Also no, they are different as they don't believe the same thing. You can be a "christian" and be totaly lost. Live a good life and love and still be lost. Why? Because you did it in the flesh and not in the Spirit. The question is who's spirit is leading the change. The one that sees proper biblical teachign and principal and applies it and says I am saved. How many beliefs systems are there in this world in which people believe to be led by God?

[Steve Epley]

NOT ONE person has recieved remission of sins since the day of Pentecost without being IMMERSED in water in the name of Jesus Christ. :thumbsup

[*AQuietPlace*]

Where in the Bible does it say that a preacher must speak the words?

[Jermyn Davidson]

NOT ONE person has recieved remission of sins since the day of Pentecost without being IMMERSED in water in the name of Jesus Christ. :thumbsup



Acts 3 has Peter preaching repentance for remission of sins.


Your stand contradicts scripture.
You are wrong.

[Steve Epley]

Acts 3 has Peter preaching repentance for remission of sins.


Your stand contradicts scripture.
You are wrong.

Acts 3:19 does NOT say that it says repent AND be coverted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter preached baptism FOR the remission of sins as he was commanded by Jesus Luke 24:47.

[HopePreacher]

You are right Bro Eply. Here is the whole verse:
Acts 3:19 - Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come froem the presence of the Lord.

the phrase, "that your sins may be blotted out" is certainly equivalent to "remission of sins.

the NIV reads, "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out..."

He seems to be saying that if they repent, turning to God their sins are "wiped out," or "blotted out," or simply, "remitted."

[Jermyn Davidson]

Acts 3:19 does NOT say that it says repent AND be coverted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter preached baptism FOR the remission of sins as he was commanded by Jesus Luke 24:47.



And explain away Acts 10:43 while you're at it...

[LUKE2447]

And explain away Acts 10:43 while you're at it...

I have never understood how Acts 10:43 proves anything for your point. Anything you do or believe looks eitehr to the cross or back at the cross depending on which side of it you are as a sinner or believer. The reality of the cross is in baptism. Paul is very clear about this in Romans 6. Also one can be turned to God at heart THUS not AT ENMITY with GOD and be filled with this Spirit as you do not resist his will. When God placed those sins on the cross in the OT they where placed in the future to reality of what would happen. No different for any sinner today. The realization though is seen at baptism!

[Aquila]

NOT ONE person has recieved remission of sins since the day of Pentecost without being IMMERSED in water in the name of Jesus Christ. :thumbsup

Well Epley the great and powerful has spoken. :lol

A few things…

Show me one verse where a person is plunged under the water in baptism. We see them walking up out of the water, but it doesn’t specifically state if they were plunged under or if the water was effused upon them.

Also, show me one verse where it shows exactly what was spoken over a person during baptism. In fact, you won’t find it because it doesn’t exist. Baptizing in the name of Jesus means to baptize based on the authority invested in the church, it’s not a baptismal liturgy to be repeated. Lastly, you’ll find that Paul was told to call upon the name of the Lord at his baptism, Ananias isn’t recorded as having to say a thing. The power in Jesus name baptism is found when the one being baptized is calling on the name of Jesus… not a preacher. You can have 10,000 Apostolic preachers screaming the name of Jesus over a person being water baptized, if that person themselves isn’t calling on the name…. it’s ineffectual.

Bro. Epley… you do realize that the very Bible you preach from was translated, printed, and propagated by non-Apostolics who often gave their lives so that you can sit here and condemn them in front of your computer while munching on doughnuts right? Even the “altar call” that you no doubt believe in and practice was originally performed by non-Apostolics. And do you sing, “Amazing Grace” in Church? Again, a non-Apostolic wrote that song. In fact, the office of Pastor, as most of us know it and practice it today, was drafted by… John Calvin, a non-Apostolic.

Bro. Epley, you and I agree that the Apostolic church is far more pure in doctrine than the traditional Trinitarian church. However, even we (including you) still practice a number of Catholic traditions and are in need of much reformation.

We ARE the revival Christians down through the ages prayed earnestly for… too bad that in our religious pride we’ve disowned them.

I believe that God is going to move on from the alphabet soup wineskins. God is unchaining the church to be the church… and UPCI, ALJC, nor any other agenda driven group can stop it.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I have never understood how Acts 10:43 proves anything for your point. Anything you do or believe looks eitehr to the cross or back at the cross depending on which side of it you are as a sinner or believer. The reality of the cross is in baptism. Paul is very clear about this in Romans 6. Also one can be turned to God at heart THUS not AT ENMITY with GOD and be filled with this Spirit as you do not resist his will. When God placed those sins on the cross in the OT they where placed in the future to reality of what would happen. No different for any sinner today. The realization though is seen at baptism!


The reality of the cross is not realized at baptism. The reality of the cross is realized before baptism.

That reality is what makes water baptism meaningful in the heart of the one getting baptized.


Romans 6 speaks a whole lot about obedience.

However those who hold that repentance and water baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues never deal with the FACT that one can not "do" speaking in tongues and so, this can not be viewed as part of the things one must do in faith in response to hearing the Gospel.








BTW, Acts 10:43 clearly establishes remission of sins at faith.

Baptism is an act of obedience based off of the clear command of the Bible.

[LUKE2447]

The reality of the cross is not realized at baptism. The reality of the cross is realized before baptism.

oh of course

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

these have nothing to do with the cross/death/sacrifice/blood becoming the reality to us. I mean what was I thinking! Was not baptism necessary "IN ORDER THAT...." Just as Christ had to DIE before he was resurrected? So do we not do so IN BAPTISM? Is not that the clear point of Paul IN LIKE MANNER as baptism is seen as that place we are UNITED WITH HIM?!?!?


That reality is what makes water baptism meaningful in the heart of the one getting baptized.

scripture please on what baptism is and it's reality to the believer!

Romans 6 speaks a whole lot about obedience.

currently the points on baptism are statements by Paul in scripture on what it is!

However those who hold that repentance and water baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues never deal with the FACT that one can not "do" speaking in tongues and so, this can not be viewed as part of the things one must do in faith in response to hearing the Gospel.


Please restate as I don't understand you point and am confused somewhat to respond properly of which I apologize.

BTW, Acts 10:43 clearly establishes remission of sins at faith.

uh and I have no problem with that. Define the whole of the "word" that defines faith and it's application not just some baptism rhetoric of "faith" is when. Faith must be defined by it's context.

Baptism is an act of obedience based off of the clear command of the Bible.

YEs, but it's not simply a command it's the reality of his death/blood/crucifixion realized. Most like you simply make it a meaningless command without any effectual spiritual realization.

[Aquila]

All I know is this what happened to me.

I went to an altar and repented of my sins, crying out to Jesus to forgive me. The men around me were praying for Jesus to forgive me. Suddenly I felt the weight of my own sin lift from my shoulders, I was forgiven. Then I began to praise Him and as I did God filled me with the Holy Ghost and I spoke in tongues for over 40 minutes. When the Spirit subsided and I was able to stand I was told that I needed to be water baptized in Jesus name. I gladly accepted and was water baptized that night in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.

I was forgiven before I was water baptized. Even the Holy Ghost testifies to that reality because I was filled to overflowing with God’s Spirit BEFORE my water baptism. God will not dwell in an unclean vessel. If sins aren’t forgiven (aphesis Gk., remitted or forgiven) at repentance people would receive the Holy Ghost only after water baptism.

I don’t know about you… but I was delivered at an old fashioned altar.

[LUKE2447]

All I know is this what happened to me.

I went to an altar and repented of my sins, crying out to Jesus to forgive me. The men around me were praying for Jesus to forgive me. Suddenly I felt the weight of my own sin lift from my shoulders, I was forgiven. Then I began to praise Him and as I did God filled me with the Holy Ghost and I spoke in tongues for over 40 minutes. When the Spirit subsided and I was able to stand I was told that I needed to be water baptized in Jesus name. I gladly accepted and was water baptized that night in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.

I was forgiven before I was water baptized. Even the Holy Ghost testifies to that reality because I was filled to overflowing with God’s Spirit BEFORE my water baptism. God will not dwell in an unclean vessel. If sins aren’t forgiven (aphesis Gk., remitted or forgiven) at repentance people would receive the Holy Ghost only after water baptism.
The acts of coming into covenant including Abraham where only brought about by responding to God ot his command. Not simply repentance! Abraham was not in covenant until HE DID! As was Noah or anyone else.
I don’t know about you… but I was delivered at an old fashioned altar.

See my points before on this about receiving the manifestation of the HS before baptism.

Repentance does allow one to feel a weight leave as does any confession and people testify to this religious or not. Also your argument for "unclean" vessel is poor and lacks foundation in your intent of it's use. As I have said before he only needs heart turned/repentant which is not at enmity with him to use them. Has nothing to do with "sins" what makes a person unclean is his heart at enmity/fighting against God. Repentance brings you to the alter prepared to be able to offer your gift/yourself to be united with him in death.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Repentance is what I do.
Baptism is what I do.

Speaking in tongues is what God does to verify the work of salvation that has already occured. To be able to heal the sick, cast out devils, apeak in new tongues are divine Promises from God to those who have His Spirit.

God never presented that we must cast out devils to verify we are saved and never instructed folks to use casting out devils as a guage to measure someone's salvation.



Concerning my previous statement on baptism, I was wrong.




Baptism "saves" us in that it is an answer to "a good conscience." 1 Peter 3:21

In other words, the person has already repented, already experienced godly sorrow for sins-- the sorrow that brings about a change.

That change in heart (evidenced in the conscience) is THE SIGN of salvation.
And so, the role of baptism is to testify of that change that has already taken place.


I cite the scripture in James that says show me your faith by my works.



So I change my mind.

Repentance(faith) and baptism go hand in hand.


That is my stance and I'm sticking to it, until shown otherwise in scripture.
Sorry for being such a flip-flopper.

If a person repents and dies without chance to get baptized, God alone is the discerner of the hearts of men. However, for those who repent and live long enough to get baptized must do so in order for their faith to line up with scriptures.

[LUKE2447]

Repentance is what I do.
Baptism is what I do.

Speaking in tongues is what God does to verify the work of salvation that has already occured. To be able to heal the sick, cast out devils, apeak in new tongues are divine Promises from God to those who have His Spirit.

God never presented that we must cast out devils to verify we are saved and never instructed folks to use casting out devils as a guage to measure someone's salvation.

We can argue initial manifestation in another thread!



Concerning my previous statement on baptism, I was wrong.



Baptism "saves" us in that it is an answer to "a good conscience." 1 Peter 3:21

Yes, and that good conscience is called faith in his promise to do what he said he would do among a few things.

In other words, the person has already repented, already experienced godly sorrow for sins-- the sorrow that brings about a change.
All true repentance religious or not does that, though I understand your point and agree.

That change in heart (evidenced in the conscience) is THE SIGN of salvation.

No it's the result of conviction of the position he finds himself before a Holy God and see what is true. His response by repentance is immediately that which will identify himself with him who died and will forgive him.... BAPTISM

Notice the flow of the text.... Repent/turn and be baptized/united with Christ everyone of you....

And so, the role of baptism is to testify of that change that has already taken place.

It can but only God decides if it is true but in the perfect world yes. Repentance is the change of the heart but the realization or completion of the change is in baptism as the old self is crucified with him and thus covenant position changes. As I have said before it does not place you in Christ as a covenant member. Baptism does that!


I cite the scripture in James that says show me your faith by my works.

Faith is completed by works otherwise that which is said is realized in the action and not before.
Your repentance is completed in baptism which is the realization of faith of his promise to do not just the type. Thus it's reality is not true until then.



So I change my mind.

We'll keep working on that. :thumbsup

Repentance(faith) and baptism go hand in hand.

Nothing more true!


That is my stance and I'm sticking to it, until shown otherwise in scripture.
Sorry for being such a flip-flopper.

ahhh part of life and we all do and have! Well maybe except for epley! LOL!

[clgustaveson]

The Great Commission is found in Matthew28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and Acts 1. And yes, baptism is mentioned in both Matthew and Mark; and alluded to in Luke 24. It is implimented in Acts 2 and contains water baptism.



My apologies, perhaps I misunderstood your question. Could you ask it again, I'll gladly answer it.



lol

I'm typing pretty plain English here and I'm drawing a conclusion based in implication which is the result of critical thinking. And I've offered no accusations toward anyone. I have indicated that those who do not baptize or who will not be baptized are in direct rebellion in relation to Christ's commission. That's common sense, not an accusation. I was military. If a commanded issued a command... it is to be obeyed. Choosing to disobey a lawful order in time of war is a serious offense.

So now let me ask you yet again,

Do you believe that water baptism is a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

Please provide a one word answer.

Is there a commission that we should get baptized to be saved? Does the Bible say that this is something essential to salvation?

I am not asking whether or not the Bible compels us to baptize... A commission to baptize people is not the same as it being essential to salvation... that is a dangerous assumption.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Is there a commission that we should get baptized to be saved? Does the Bible say that this is something essential to salvation?

I am not asking whether or not the Bible compels us to baptize... A commission to baptize people is not the same as it being essential to salvation... that is a dangerous assumption.



When you view the scriptures as a whole, the picture is painted clearly that a Christian is to be baptized. Baptism is commanded in the Bible.

[Falla39]

The teacher of the adult class yesterday, said, "The water washed away the past, the Spirit will take care of our future".

John, the Baptist, preached the message of repentance. BUT he expained
that there was one coming afterwards who would baptize them with the
Spirit. (Holy Ghost and fire.) It would seem that those who believe they are
saved at repentance are still following John the Baptist. (no offense intended)

Before a mother gives birth, she usually goes through a cleansing preparation to prepare for the birth. Looks like Repentance and baptism would do the same, before the new birth.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38

Falla39

[Aquila]

See my points before on this about receiving the manifestation of the HS before baptism.

Repentance does allow one to feel a weight leave as does any confession and people testify to this religious or not. Also your argument for "unclean" vessel is poor and lacks foundation in your intent of it's use. As I have said before he only needs heart turned/repentant which is not at enmity with him to use them. Has nothing to do with "sins" what makes a person unclean is his heart at enmity/fighting against God. Repentance brings you to the alter prepared to be able to offer your gift/yourself to be united with him in death.

Brother, with all due respects... I know that I was forgiven. We praised him and thanked him for His forgiveness, asking that he fill me with his Spirit. I was forgiven, plain and simple. However, if I would have refused to be water baptized I would have been in rebellion.

[Aquila]

The teacher of the adult class yesterday, said, "The water washed away the past, the Spirit will take care of our future".

John, the Baptist, preached the message of repentance. BUT he expained
that there was one coming afterwards who would baptize them with the
Spirit. (Holy Ghost and fire.) It would seem that those who believe they are
saved at repentance are still following John the Baptist. (no offense intended)

Before a mother gives birth, she usually goes through a cleansing preparation to prepare for the birth. Looks like Repentance and baptism would do the same, before the new birth.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38

Falla39

Falla, water is H2O. It has no spiritual property, therefore it can't wash away sin.

I fear we use terms that make an idol out of water. Water is just water, as stone is just stone. There is no saving power in water. However, there is saving power in the name when one calls on that name. It appears that Paul was instructed to call on that name as part of water baptism. It was calling on the name that washes the sins away.

This isn't meant to detract from the necessity of water baptism. In water baptism we are symbolically buried with him.

[Falla39]

Falla, water is H2O. It has no spiritual property, therefore it can't wash away sin.

I fear we use terms that make an idol out of water. Water is just water, as stone is just stone. There is no saving power in water. However, there is saving power in the name when one calls on that name. It appears that Paul was instructed to call on that name as part of water baptism. It was calling on the name that washes the sins away.

This isn't meant to detract from the necessity of water baptism. In water baptism we are symbolically buried with him.

As I said in an earlier post a few days ago, the power is NOT in the water
as there is no power in the oil when laying hands on the sick. It is the NAME
called in baptism and in praying for the sick. Obedient faith in the Name of
Jesus!

Gal. 3:27,
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(or have been clothed with Christ.)

Blessings,

Falla39

[Aquila]

As I said in an earlier post a few days ago, the power is NOT in the water
as there is no power in the oil when laying hands on the sick. It is the NAME
called in baptism and in praying for the sick. Obedient faith in the Name of
Jesus!

Gal. 3:27,
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(or have been clothed with Christ.)

Blessings,

Falla39

So we agree that the statement, ""The water washed away the past, the Spirit will take care of our future.", is not theologically accurate, correct?

Now again, this brings back the issue of who is to call upon the name at baptism, the preacher or the convert? In Paul's baptism Paul was clearly told to call on the name of the Lord. We've sacramentalized what should be free flowing.

[Falla39]

1 Corinthians 1
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Rom. 10:12-17

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[HopePreacher]

1 Corinthians 1
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Rom. 10:12-17

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


Can't add much to that it's pure word... thanks sis.

[clgustaveson]

When you view the scriptures as a whole, the picture is painted clearly that a Christian is to be baptized. Baptism is commanded in the Bible.

Thanks for making this clear.... :noidea

[clgustaveson]

The teacher of the adult class yesterday, said, "The water washed away the past, the Spirit will take care of our future".

John, the Baptist, preached the message of repentance. BUT he expained
that there was one coming afterwards who would baptize them with the
Spirit. (Holy Ghost and fire.) It would seem that those who believe they are
saved at repentance are still following John the Baptist. (no offense intended)

Before a mother gives birth, she usually goes through a cleansing preparation to prepare for the birth. Looks like Repentance and baptism would do the same, before the new birth.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38

Falla39

You can argue analogies all day, but through this entire thread there has only been one decent response...

You can make analogies all you want but they don't mean anything... Just because a soon to be mother has to clean before she gives birth doesn't mean anything when it comes to baptism. I hear too many preachers give cute little analogies like that, yeah they sound cool and they help get a point across but without an actual scripture that states the thesis of the parable it means nothing... a parable alone doesn't mean baptism is essential to salvation....

Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that all I am asking for is one scripture somewhere in the Bible that says our salvation hinges upon baptism.. just because we should doesn't mean our salvation is contingent upon it... That is the only question I am asking here...

Just because we are commissioned to baptize does that mean our salvation is contingent upon baptism?

Maybe it is maybe it isn't... but I can tell you one thing... I am sick of people with their judgmental attitudes acting like this one thing, one thing that divides churches across the world, is one thing that will send people to hell. I could imagine if everyone that was baptized acted like they were saved but I step foot into too many churches where people stick their noses up and act like because they were baptized (in a name that I believe so thoroughly in) they are better than everyone else...

Are you better than everyone else because you went and did something you were commissioned to?

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, baptism is hardly an expression of faith, it's more of an expression of intent... When someone new comes to your church do you act like they need to be drug to alter so that they too can cross over and hopefully you can mess their hair up so much with your "prayer" that they decide they might as well get wet?

God bless you...

I love Jesus and I believe baptism is just as much a part of salvation as living a clean lifestyle but I am too torn watching strong believers condemn their neighbors for not having the same belief and possibly inwardly committing blaspheme over a subject that is about as clear as a brick wall...

If you think you are justified in feeling that all who are not baptized are not saved then that is between you and God, but I know for certain that there is too much at stake in the game and I am not going to assume the damnation of one person over any one thing while church feels the need to segregate themselves from the world...

It is the mentality that says "you have to do this before you can be like me" that causes the world to feel the cold shoulder of love and I personally have started to grow weary watching some of the best of believers fall victim to a mentality of disapproval...

There aren't enough chlorinated bathtubs in this country to convince me that we are doing the right thing...

Yes, I believe baptism is an integral part of accepting Jesus, am I fully convinced it is a key component of salvation? Not at all but am I willing to risk it? not at all

[Falla39]

Brother, is not repentance cleaning up before we are born again! The priests had to be
clean before they went into the Holy of Holies for the people.

Psalms 24:
3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?

4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Falla39

[clgustaveson]

Brother, is not repentance cleaning up before we are born again! The priests had to be
clean before they went into the Holy of Holies for the people.

Psalms 24:
3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?

4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Falla39

What does this have anything to do with this thread or any question asked here?

[Falla39]

What does this have anything to do with this thread or any question asked here?

Oh, excuse me! This is YOUR thread and I'll leave you with it!

Blessings,

Falla39

[clgustaveson]

Oh, excuse me! This is YOUR thread and I'll leave you with it!

Blessings,

Falla39

I am just asking you to make your point more clear... nothing you have said really makes any sense regarding the topic... unless you make it clear I am quite lost.

[Hoovie]

Brother, is not repentance cleaning up before we are born again! The priests had to be
clean before they went into the Holy of Holies for the people.

Psalms 24:
3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?

4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Falla39

I would say no, rather, one who is born again wants to be baptized.

[Hoovie]

If you think you are justified in feeling that all who are not baptized are not saved then that is between you and God, but I know for certain that there is too much at stake in the game and I am not going to assume the damnation of one person over any one thing while church feels the need to segregate themselves from the world...

It is the mentality that says "you have to do this before you can be like me" that causes the world to feel the cold shoulder of love and I personally have started to grow weary watching some of the best of believers fall victim to a mentality of disapproval...



clgustaveson, Practically speaking why is this important to you? I don't know many Christians personally that reject baptism, do you?

[Pressing-On]

I am just asking you to make your point more clear... nothing you have said really makes any sense regarding the topic... unless you make it clear I am quite lost.
I was taught to be respectful to my elders even if and when I didn't agree with them.

[clgustaveson]

I was taught to be respectful to my elders even if and when I didn't agree with them.

I don't know what he is trying to say, I don't feel like I am being rude... I don't know if I agree or not, his point wasn't about baptism so i don't know. I don't know why you would just randomly say that either, all I am saying is he didn't really make any point.

[clgustaveson]

clgustaveson, Practically speaking why is this important to you? I don't know many Christians personally that reject baptism, do you?

But that argument is counter what I believe...

I believe in God because I have a concrete experience with him, I test all things faith (just as the Bible says) and I hardly ever believe something by consensus...

Basically you are telling me that because most God fearing Christians do not reject Baptism that I shouldn't even question the established belief?

I think you should read my post again because I think I thoroughly explain why this is an important matter to me...

[Pressing-On]

I don't know what he is trying to say, I don't feel like I am being rude... I don't know if I agree or not, his point wasn't about baptism so i don't know. I don't know why you would just randomly say that either, all I am saying is he didn't really make any point.

Her point.

[clgustaveson]

Her point.

Excuse me?

[clgustaveson]

Excuse me?

NVM, my eyes just caught my assumption... FALLA sorry duly noted your sn is not FELLA....

[Pressing-On]

NVM, my eyes just caught my assumption... FALLA sorry duly noted your sn is not FELLA....

Okay, simmer down then. We'd hate to have to beat you! :toofunny

[clgustaveson]

Okay, simmer down then. We'd hate to have to beat you! :toofunny

OK, I just don't see what the point being made was... I am asking for people to steer me in the direction of answers and posts that are less than clear make it a waste of time.

[Hoovie]

But that argument is counter what I believe...

I believe in God because I have a concrete experience with him, I test all things faith (just as the Bible says) and I hardly ever believe something by consensus...

Basically you are telling me that because most God fearing Christians do not reject Baptism that I shouldn't even question the established belief?

I think you should read my post again because I think I thoroughly explain why this is an important matter to me...

I did read the entire post.

But when you state,
"If you think you are justified in feeling that all who are not baptized are not saved then that is between you and God,..."

it sounds like you know people that, a) are Christian but not baptized, and b) know others that believe the same are lost. Just wondering if you have experienced this or if this is all hypothetical.

In general, I believe Christians pretty much all believe in baptism, while differing on modes and methods.

[clgustaveson]

I did read the entire post.

But when you state,
"If you think you are justified in feeling that all who are not baptized are not saved then that is between you and God,..."

it sounds like you know people that, a) are Christian but not baptized, and b) know others that believe the same are lost. Just wondering if you have experienced this or if this is all hypothetical.

In general, I believe Christians pretty much all believe in baptism, while differing on modes and methods.

Yes, baptism is an undeniable part of the Bible... more Christians believe it is not essential to salvation, most apostolic people do though... why?

Believing in Baptism is different than believing it is essential to salvation... Should you judge a mans intentions? By stating do you know any Christians that refuse to be baptized, you are (however unintentional it may be) suggesting they are not Christians because they choose not to be baptized... there are many reasons one would choose not to, and I see only three reasons to... Jesus did, to be saved, and because everyone else is.... you pick which you believe but why would you assume that all Christians would want to?

[LUKE2447]

I would say no, rather, one who is born again wants to be baptized.

scripture please... because that is not what Romans 6 says and you cannot be born again into newness of life UNTIL one is baptized.

Falla is right in part! That is the WHOLE POINT of JEsus comments on reconciling/repenting first BEFORE one comes and offers his gift on the alter! You must be clean at heart/not fight or at enmity on your part before you can offer yourself to him in unification of his death in baptism!

[LUKE2447]

Yes, baptism is an undeniable part of the Bible... more Christians believe it is not essential to salvation, most apostolic people do though... why?

not in the early church it wasn't. No such thing as baptism not for salvation.
Still not today either. Also more people believe it is than not: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, COC, OP's and many others would disagree with you on that and the statistics bare that out. Numbers though mean nothing but your point was wrong.

[LUKE2447]

Brother, with all due respects... I know that I was forgiven. We praised him and thanked him for His forgiveness, asking that he fill me with his Spirit. I was forgiven, plain and simple. However, if I would have refused to be water baptized I would have been in rebellion.

I understand and as I have told you my friend we both experienced it the same way. Again scripture is scripture and I have explained reception before baptism. It's up to you to understand it in his Word by clear didactic scripture. Sorry but many of the views presented in his thread cannot be shown to be said of baptism from a practical application or to didactic teaching. One needs at least one to prove a point. Didactic teaching trumps everything and nobody has given a applicable definition or didactic teaching on this subject to show bpatism is anything other than be united with Christ LITERALY. The only thing baptism has been said to be in a spiritual sense is a "response of a good conscience". The problem is that scripture shows AND SAYS BAPTISM is what saves us. Also as I have shown that clear consciensce is due to repentance per the point of Jesus of go and reconcille/repent and THEN come and offer you gift on the alter. Why? You are not acceptable to offer anything until then. Stop making your doctrine fail when it comes to the most basic test. The Word of God. Because currently you are basing it on a experience that was precious and awesome of which we both share but you have added to it something it wasn't and that is the joining of yourself with his death/sacrifice/blood in baptism.

[Falla39]

What does this have anything to do with this thread or any question asked here?

Perhaps a much simplier way to say what I was endeavoring to say would be

"except ye repent (turn from your wicked ways (unbelief) ye shall all likewise
perish. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved BUT he that believeth
NOT shall be damned",
GOD WILL NOT DWELL (live, make HIS abode ) in an
UNCLEAN temple) body.
Repent (make an about face) and be baptized (immersed) in the NAME of
Jesus Christ for the remission (or remitting) of sin and you SHALL receive
the gift of the HOLY GHOST!!

John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Mark 16:15-17:
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.

Blessings,

Falla39

[Hoovie]

scripture please... because that is not what Romans 6 says and you cannot be born again into newness of life UNTIL one is baptized.

Falla is right in part! That is the WHOLE POINT of JEsus comments on reconciling/repenting first BEFORE one comes and offers his gift on the alter! You must be clean at heart/not fight or at enmity on your part before you can offer yourself to him in unification of his death in baptism!

Unless you ascribe to baptismal regeneration, the burial and ressurection from the waters of baptism are symbolic of the burial of the old man and his walking in new life. It is a public declaration of what has occurred to the inner man. At the same time baptism is indeed a vital part of initiation for the new Christian, declaring openly what God has done in ones life.

[LUKE2447]

Unless you ascribe to baptismal regeneration, the burial and ressurection from the waters of baptism are symbolic of the burial of the old man and his walking in new life. It is a public declaration of what has occurred to the inner man. At the same time baptism is indeed a vital part of initiation for the new Christian, declaring openly what God has done in ones life.

Scriptures for you statement... Also no it's not just a declaration or SYMBOLIC of what has happened(scriptures please) it is what the Bible says UNITING LITERALY! READ THE TEXT!

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Is that literal?

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Thus Paul asks the question of ackowledgment of how the STATED FACT HAPPENED! Thus the ALL OF THIS is LITERAL! Also notice the other direct stated fact of happening "baptized INTO Christ"! Does it say repented or anything else? NO! Does repentance bring you properly before the alter properly? yes! Is it though the reality of what happens on it? NO! Baptism is the reality of his death/crucifixion/blood applied to you!

Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Thus he continues his point of the LITERAL! To get to the point why we are baptized INTO HIS DEATH. WHY? IN ORDER THAT! You cannot say it is meaningless symbology when baptism must come first "IN ORDER THAT"! Why? Death must proceed life! You make baptism with you statement destitute of any spiritual reality!

Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

pretty much explains itself.

Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing,(DESTROYED,PUT TO DEATH) so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

It was crucified... HOW? Baptism! Which all the previous places point to baptism being OUR DEATH WITH HIM! In ORDER THAT we might not be enslaved to sin. Which goes back to his first point of;

"How can we who died to sin still live in it?" We can't because we died to it in baptism and have been seperated from it IN BAPTISM! Which he pretty much says in the very next verse.

Rom 6:7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.

Which goes BACK to his whole question in verse 2!

[Sam]

scripture please... because that is not what Romans 6 says and you cannot be born again into newness of life UNTIL one is baptized.
...


Which baptism does Romans 6 speak of:
water baptism?
Spirit baptism?
both baptisms (water and Spirit)
or some other experience that happens prior to water and/or Spirit baptism?

if burial is water baptism and rising to walk in newness of life is Spirit baptism, what happens if someone experiences Spirit baptism before water baptism? Are they raised to new life before burial and then buried after they have been raised to new life? What about the millions of people who have received Spirit baptism but have either not been immersed or were immersed in the traditional FS&HG formula? Have they been raised to new life but not buried yet? If they have been raised to new life years ago, should they now be buried? Should you kill/bury a person who is alive in the Spirit?

[Sam]

Unless you ascribe to baptismal regeneration, the burial and ressurection from the waters of baptism are symbolic of the burial of the old man and his walking in new life. It is a public declaration of what has occurred to the inner man. At the same time baptism is indeed a vital part of initiation for the new Christian, declaring openly what God has done in ones life.

uh, oh, you just said a "bad word" there.

Born of water may mean baptism in water but we mustn't use that BR (baptismal regeneration) term. It's a no-no. It associates us with Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Campbellites, and those kind of people (and we all know that they are going to hell).

[Sam]

Is there a difference between being baptized BY the Spirit into Christ and being baptized IN the Spirit?

[LUKE2447]

Which baptism does Romans 6 speak of:
water baptism?
Spirit baptism?
both baptisms (water and Spirit)
or some other experience that happens prior to water and/or Spirit baptism?

you already know the answer to that.

if burial is water baptism and rising to walk in newness of life is Spirit baptism, what happens if someone experiences Spirit baptism before water baptism?

Already explained that before.

Are they raised to new life before burial and then buried after they have been raised to new life?

What does "in order that" not make clear?

What about the millions of people who have received Spirit baptism but have either not been immersed or were immersed in the traditional FS&HG formula?

Getting off the subject and of what I said and will not follow that well worn path and question as I have said many times and to you. We are discussing whether it is essential!

Have they been raised to new life but not buried yet?

One must be born of Water and Spirit! I have already pointed out God can move on a individual with a turned heart thus the Spirit can effect his life, thus he is alive to the Spirit. Has nothing to do with whether his sins and flesh have been united with Christ in his death.


If they have been raised to new life years ago, should they now be buried? Should you kill/bury a person who is alive in the Spirit?

Two different things! If they have never been baptized they might be alive to his call because in there heart they are turned to God but that has nothing to do with be united in death/sacrifice of Christ. You are not dead in the flesh yet.

Also deal with the text directly! Thanks!

[LUKE2447]

uh, oh, you just said a "bad word" there.

Born of water may mean baptism in water but we mustn't use that BR (baptismal regeneration) term. It's a no-no. It associates us with Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Campbellites, and those kind of people (and we all know that they are going to hell).

As much as you know Sam you should have known that you just used it improperly to certain groups. Also I find your remark of going to hell not to the caliber of person you are!

[Falla39]

[QUOTE=Sam;761231]Which baptism does Romans 6 speak of:
water baptism?
Spirit baptism?
both baptisms (water and Spirit)
or some other experience that happens prior to water and/or Spirit baptism?

Bro. Sam,

My late father would say, "One Lord, One faith and One baptism".
Duel elements but one Baptism. Water and Spirit.
So what if the Spirit comes down and raises us up out of the grave
(waterery or otherwise).No matter when the Spirit comes, we're gonna
rise!!

Blessings, Brother!

Falla39

[LUKE2447]

[QUOTE=Sam;761231]Which baptism does Romans 6 speak of:
water baptism?
Spirit baptism?
both baptisms (water and Spirit)
or some other experience that happens prior to water and/or Spirit baptism?

Bro. Sam,

My late father would say, "One Lord, One faith and One baptism".
Duel elements but one Baptism. Water and Spirit.
So what if the Spirit comes down and raises us up out of the grave
(waterery or otherwise).No matter when the Spirit comes, we're gonna
rise!!

Blessings, Brother!

Falla39

amen... one deals with the flesh and the other with the Spirit.

[Falla39]

[QUOTE=Falla39;761263]

amen... one deals with the flesh and the other with the Spirit.

By obedient faith man does what he can do in the flesh and God does in
the Spirit what no man can do!!
God sent His Son to do in the flesh what GOd could not do as Spirit!

Blessings,

Falla39

[LUKE2447]

[QUOTE=LUKE2447;761267]

By obedient faith man does what he can do in the flesh and God does in
the Spirit what no man can do!!
God sent His Son to do in the flesh what GOd could not do as Spirit!

Blessings,

Falla39

Yep, thus the need for two aspects of one reality we know as salvation! Made alive by water and Spirit!

[Falla39]

[QUOTE=Falla39;761272]

Yep, thus the need for two aspects of one reality we know as salvation! Made alive by water and Spirit!

Also as Jesus (humanity) prayed to the Father (Spirit) in John 17, beginning with verse 21,

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

God and man fused together in one body.

Falla39

[Adino]

Someone needs a basic English lesson. Here's the text,


"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

Here's an exegesis of the sentence,

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, [by] calling on the name of the Lord."

The comma takes the place of "by" and without it the sentence would read,

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins by calling on the name of the Lord."

While Paul was clearly commanded to be baptized, his sins were washed away as a result of his calling upon the name of the Lord.There was no punctuation in the original Greek.

[Steve Epley]

NOT ONE person from Pentecost until present has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in in water while the name of Jesus Christ was invoked over them.:thumbsup

[Timmy]

NOT ONE person from Pentecost until present has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in in water while the name of Jesus Christ was invoked over them.:thumbsup

Really? You sure about that? :lol

[clgustaveson]

not in the early church it wasn't. No such thing as baptism not for salvation.
Still not today either. Also more people believe it is than not: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, COC, OP's and many others would disagree with you on that and the statistics bare that out. Numbers though mean nothing but your point was wrong.

You are distorting my words... I never said it was a part of salvation just a large part of the church (which it was)...

Saying that it is so important to be completely right on this subject is just asking for an argument...

I wont waste my time... I just want to know why people believe what they believe so I can take a personal stance.

[clgustaveson]

Perhaps a much simplier way to say what I was endeavoring to say would be

"except ye repent (turn from your wicked ways (unbelief) ye shall all likewise
perish. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved BUT he that believeth
NOT shall be damned",
GOD WILL NOT DWELL (live, make HIS abode ) in an
UNCLEAN temple) body.
Repent (make an about face) and be baptized (immersed) in the NAME of
Jesus Christ for the remission (or remitting) of sin and you SHALL receive
the gift of the HOLY GHOST!!

John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Mark 16:15-17:
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.

Blessings,

Falla39

This still does not answer the purpose of the thread....

[clgustaveson]

NOT ONE person from Pentecost until present has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in in water while the name of Jesus Christ was invoked over them.:thumbsup

Wow, God bless you but I feel like that is why I refuse to accept this doctrine...

Jesus died for the propitiation of sins both past and present, the power of Jesus' death is not bound by your singular opinion, and quite frankly I feel like that statement is close to blaspheme...

[Adino]

YES a man will be condemned though his sins were forgiven at Calvary ...... I contend though YOU have faith in the slain Lamb historically YOU MUST apply the blood as PRESCRIBED!Steve, I think you have a major concern here.

Why must WE apply the blood which the resurrection proves has already been applied and accepted by God?

Our sin was Christ's and it was removed BEFORE the resurrection, thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied in the eyes of God (else Christ would not have been raised).

Do you believe the blood of Christ must be applied twice? Once before the resurrection and then again when we are baptized?

AND...

What is the blood being applied to in baptism? You've already conceded that our sins were remitted before the resurrection. If they are historically removed, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

Your position seems inconsistent. Please clarify.

[Adino]

Steve, I think you have a major concern here.

Why must WE apply the blood which the resurrection proves has already been applied and accepted by God?

Our sin was Christ's and it was removed BEFORE the resurrection, thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied in the eyes of God (else Christ would not have been raised).

Do you believe the blood of Christ must be applied twice? Once before the resurrection and then again when we are baptized?

AND...

What is the blood being applied to in baptism? You've already conceded that our sins were remitted before the resurrection. If they are historically removed, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

Your position seems inconsistent. Please clarify.Anyone who holds to baptismal sin remission can share a thought here.

[Adino]

Can we all agree that the blood of Christ is NOT applied to our sins in baptism?

[freeatlast]

Anyone who holds to baptismal sin remission can share a thought here.

Steve must be gone..looking up the definition of imputed. :smack

[Adino]

Can we all agree that the blood of Christ is NOT applied to our sins in baptism?

[HopePreacher]

I've been out of this discussion for a while...
Does anyone have any scriptural references that directly tie baptism to the application of the blood of Christ? When I say "directly" I mean a reference that clearly and intentionally tie the two together?

[Falla39]

A well-known UPC minister said that one thing we have not understood is that
God hid his blood in His Name! I've thought about that a lot.

Gal.3:26-27,
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

John 3-16-18:
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Mark 16:16-18.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I believe baptism in the Name of Jesus IS ESSENTIAL to salvation.

Luke 24:44-49,
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Every baptism in the book of Acts was done as Jesus had opened their understanding to
do. In the name of Jesus Christ. God made him both Lord and Christ.

Acts 2:31-33,
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Unbelief blinds the eyes of those who do not believe so that they CANNOT
see. God hid the truth from the wise (in their own eyes) and prudent, and
revealed it unto babes.(those who came to him as little children. (with child-
like faith).

[LUKE2447]

Can we all agree that the blood of Christ is NOT applied to our sins in baptism?

NO!

[Timmy]

NO!

Is there anything you guys agree on? :ursofunny

[LUKE2447]

I've been out of this discussion for a while...
Does anyone have any scriptural references that directly tie baptism to the application of the blood of Christ? When I say "directly" I mean a reference that clearly and intentionally tie the two together?

Yes, and it is a question I ask ALL the time to people to show me when the blood is applied. Romans 6 is clear. Death is synonymous with the blood. We are baptized into his death/sacrifice/blood! These are used to illustrate the moment in time in which we realize HIM in his sacrifice as we are UNITED WITH HIM IN IT!

[Falla39]

Repentance - death to sin
Burial - Baptism in Jesus Name-for the remission of sins.
Resurrection - raised up to walk in newness of life.

God sent His Son to earth that through him, mankind could be saved.
Even a little child when taught should be able to see that God, in the
body (flesh) of Jesus, went through the steps to show THE WAY. Jesus
told his disciples that he was the Way, the Truth and the Life. But the
way to get to the Father was through him. JESUS was the Father's House
while on earth. We house the Father now, if so be that the Spirit dwell in
you. God is a spirit! THE SPIRIT! He lives in those who desire Him to dwell
in them. We are the temple of the Living God. HE will NOT dwell in an unclean
temple.
The temple in Jerusalem (made with hands) was destroyed because it became
something God never intended it to be. If you or I or the church ever becomes
what He never intended it to be, we or the church will be removed or destroyed
also.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living GOD!

The Tabernacle Plan is a good study for those who want to know
where the blood was applied. Hint: it did not remain on the alter
of sacrifice.

The blood on the doorposts of the children of Israel, was on all three
sides. It represented the protection or covering of the whole entrance.
There is a covering for those entering into the Kingdom of God also.
There was a way to prepare the Ark in Noah's day. It wasn't built
according to man's plan. GOD planned the saving of Noah's house. He
planned the saving of the children of Israel and He planned our salvation.
The Lord opens our understanding to His Plan when we come as a little
child and obey His Plan for man. Not the other way around.

Blessings,

Falla39

[LUKE2447]

Repentance - death to sin
Burial - Baptism in Jesus Name-for the remission of sins.
Resurrection - raised up to walk in newness of life.

God sent His Son to earth that through him, mankind could be saved.
Even a little child when taught should be able to see that God, in the
body (flesh) of Jesus, went through the steps to show THE WAY. Jesus
told his disciples that he was the Way, the Truth and the Life. But the
way to get to the Father was through him. JESUS was the Father's House
while on earth. We house the Father now, if so be that the Spirit dwell in
you. God is a spirit! THE SPIRIT! He lives in those who desire Him to dwell
in them. We are the temple of the Living God. HE will NOT dwell in an unclean
temple.
The temple in Jerusalem (made with hands) was destroyed because it became
something God never intended it to be. If you or I or the church ever becomes
what He never intended it to be, we or the church will be removed or destroyed
also.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living GOD!

The Tabernacle Plan is a good study for those who want to know
where the blood was applied. Hint: it did not remain on the alter
of sacrifice.

The blood on the doorposts of the children of Israel, was on all three
sides. It represented the protection or covering of the whole entrance.
There is a covering for those entering into the Kingdom of God also.
There was a way to prepare the Ark in Noah's day. It wasn't built
according to man's plan. GOD planned the saving of Noah's house. He
planned the saving of the children of Israel and He planned our salvation.
The Lord opens our understanding to His Plan when we come as a little
child and obey His Plan for man. Not the other way around.

Blessings,

Falla39

though I agree repentance is a turning from sin it is not the same unification "in death" with Christ. Not saying your saying that but just makinga point!

[Sam]

Can we all agree that the blood of Christ is NOT applied to our sins in baptism?

no, that is one of the differences among Apostolic Pentecostals.

Some believe sins are forgiven/remitted/washed away at repentance.

Some believe sins are forgiven at repentance and then remitted at water baptism (even though the forgiveness and remission are the same word in Greek)

Some believe sins are not forgiven/remitted/washed away until water baptism.

Some believe sins are not forgiven/remitted/washed away until both water and Spirit baptism are completed.

I think the above describe the various views among Oneness Pentecostals.

[Sam]

Is there anything you guys agree on? :ursofunny


must be something we all agree on
but I cant' think of it right now

[Timmy]

must be something we all agree on
but I cant' think of it right now

How about "Timmy is lost"? :heeheehee

[Sam]

How about "Timmy is lost"? :heeheehee



lost?

Luke chapter 15 speaks about some lost stuff.
standard sermon would say there are three lost things there:
silver, was lost, didn't know it was lost, didn't know the way back
sheep, was lost, knew it was lost, didn't know the way back
son, was lost, knew he was lost, knew his way back

the first 2 were sought for until found, then rejoiced over the finding
the third was mourned until he returned, then rejoiced over when he returned.

The silver and the sheep still remained in the owner's possession.
The son still remained in the family.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Sam,

Do you believe that a person who has the opportunity for baptism and simply denies it and dies unbaptized will inherit eternal life?

I don't think that the waters in baptism washes sins away, but I think that every believer must be baptized, in accordance with scripture.

What do you think?

[Falla39]

Sam,

Do you believe that a person who has the opportunity for baptism and simply denies it and dies unbaptized will inherit eternal life?

I don't think that the waters in baptism washes sins away, but I think that every believer must be baptized, in accordance with scripture.

What do you think?

Bro. Jermyn,

What do you do with this verse?


38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Blessings,

Falla39

[Adino]

Anyone,

It is a matter of historical fact that that blood of Christ was 'applied' at Calvary PRIOR to Christ's resurrection. If it had not been applied, then Christ would not have been resurrected. The resurrection proves that the shed blood of Christ was effective in removing any sin imputed to Christ. ALL sin imputed to Christ was remitted because of his blood BEFORE he rose again.

Why must WE (at any time) apply the blood which the resurrection proves has already been applied and accepted by God?

Our sin was imputed to Christ and it was removed BEFORE the resurrection, thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied in the eyes of God (else Christ would not have been raised).

Do you believe the blood of Christ must be applied twice? Once before the resurrection and then again when we are baptized?

AND...

What is the blood being applied to in baptism?If our sins were historically removed before the resurrection, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

[HopePreacher]

Yes, and it is a question I ask ALL the time to people to show me when the blood is applied. Romans 6 is clear. Death is synonymous with the blood. We are baptized into his death/sacrifice/blood! These are used to illustrate the moment in time in which we realize HIM in his sacrifice as we are UNITED WITH HIM IN IT!

Actually, unless I missed something, the passage you refer to in Romans does not mention the blood of Christ. HOwever, here is a scripture that applies the blood at the point of faith in Christ:

Romans 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

The following scriptures do not contain the words "faith" and "blood" in the same sentence, but in context the subject is faith in Christ: Romans 5:9, Hebrews 9:14, 1 John 1:7, Revelation 1:5.

I looked diligently but I didn't find any scripture that directly linked baptism and the application of the blood.

[HopePreacher]

Anyone,

It is a matter of historical fact that that blood of Christ was 'applied' at Calvary PRIOR to Christ's resurrection. If it had not been applied, then Christ would not have been resurrected. The resurrection proves that the shed blood of Christ was effective in removing any sin imputed to Christ. ALL sin imputed to Christ was remitted because of his blood BEFORE he rose again.

Why must WE (at any time) apply the blood which the resurrection proves has already been applied and accepted by God?

Our sin was imputed to Christ and it was removed BEFORE the resurrection, thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied in the eyes of God (else Christ would not have been raised).

Do you believe the blood of Christ must be applied twice? Once before the resurrection and then again when we are baptized?

AND...

What is the blood being applied to in baptism?If our sins were historically removed before the resurrection, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

If the blood is already applied, then what does faith do?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I looked diligently but I didn't find any scripture that directly linked baptism and the application of the blood.

I agree with you HP.


However, baptism is mandated Biblically.

It is safe Biblically to say that baptism plays a role in our salvation.
We do it because God says do it-- regardless of how we see it fitting in to the process.

[HopePreacher]

I agree with you HP.


However, baptism is mandated Biblically.

It is safe Biblically to say that baptism plays a role in our salvation.
We do it because God says do it-- regardless of how we see it fitting in to the process.

That is what I teach. My question is not whether baptism is essential to salvation; my question is why would a person not be baptized?

an interesting side note; in the church where I serve on staff (a Charismatic church of about 350 in regular attendance) I do most of the baptizing. When the senior pastor saw me baptize the firsst time he asked me where I learned to baptize like that (I combine Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38) then declared that is the way this church will baptize from now on. So, in this otherwise trinitarian church, everyone who has been baptized here over the past four years has been baptized in Jesus name.

[Falla39]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH7MH7n3j28

[HopePreacher]

Thank you sister Falla. Vestel Goodman is one of my all-time favorites.

[Falla39]

Thank you sister Falla. Vestel Goodman is one of my all-time favorites.

I always liked to hear Vestel Goodman sing, but most of all, I love that
old hymn of the church.

Blessings,

Falla39

[Sam]

Thank you sister Falla. Vestel Goodman is one of my all-time favorites.

Vestal Goodman!
What a singer!!!
What a voice!!!
What an anointing!!!

Years ago as we got our family (5 children, my wife and I) ready for Sunday School we used to play those old 33 1/3 vinyl albums of the Goodmans, the Rambos, the Sego Brothers and Naomi, and others. My wife would put a roast covered with dry onion soup mix and surrounded by carrots and potatoes in the oven and away we'd go. Several hours later, after Sunday School and morning service and sometimes prayer around the altar, we'd get back home with our stomachs growling and open the door and that heavenly aroma of roast would greet us.

The Goodmans were always favorites of ours. We saw them in person once many years ago when they were all alive and well and singing together. Then when Bill Gaither came out with those videos we bought a lot of them.

I remember seeing Vestal Goodman praying for someone on tv. I don't remember the person or the occasion but Vestel prayed mightily in tongues. I could sense that anointing of power seeing it on video. It bore witness with my spirit.

[Sam]

Sam,

Do you believe that a person who has the opportunity for baptism and simply denies it and dies unbaptized will inherit eternal life?

I don't think that the waters in baptism washes sins away, but I think that every believer must be baptized, in accordance with scripture.

What do you think?

I would not judge anyone on their baptism.
Over the years I've interacted with and fellowshipped lots of people from various church backgrounds. Some were sprinkled as children and did not believe they had to do anything else as far as baptism. Some had been sprinkled as children and then immersed as adults after they had made a personal commitment to the Lord. Some thought it was wrong to be immersed as an adult if you had been sprinkled as a child. Some were baptized (immersed) using the FS&HG wording and others were baptized (immersed) using the name of Jesus and maybe some titles like Lord and/or Christ.

I do not know what is in a person's heart and how much he/she understands about doctrines like communion, baptism, church membership and other things where there is diversity among Christians. It is my opinion that if a person is sincerely in love with and serving Jesus, that person will walk in whatever light he/she receives. I have to leave that between the person and the One who is our Judge.

[Sam]

I personally believe the name "Jesus" was spoken audibly in early Christian baptism.

This may be reflected in James 2:7 in the Amplified Bible which says:
"Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?"

Also by a comment by William Barclay in his comment on James 2:7 in his notes:
"It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name Christian by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for called (epikaleisthai) is the word used for a wife taking her husband's name in marriage or for a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ."
page 67 of The Letters of James and Peter

However, some believe that in places like Acts 2:38, 10:48 and others where the expression of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord is used, it means in the authority of Jesus or as authorized by Jesus. So, people who understand it that way go to see where Jesus authorized baptism and by whom and they use the words of Matthew 28:19 as Jesus spoke them. To them that is being baptized in Jesus' name because they use the words He used with His disciples.

I've also seen Acts 2:38 paraphrased as "be baptized in the name of Jesus who was anointed for the the forgiveness of your sins."

I have heard (so this is hearsay) of two UPC churches (one in Louisiana and one in Ohio) who use the following formula when baptizing a person, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

[Hoovie]

That is what I teach. My question is not whether baptism is essential to salvation; my question is why would a person not be baptized?
an interesting side note; in the church where I serve on staff (a Charismatic church of about 350 in regular attendance) I do most of the baptizing. When the senior pastor saw me baptize the firsst time he asked me where I learned to baptize like that (I combine Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38) then declared that is the way this church will baptize from now on. So, in this otherwise trinitarian church, everyone who has been baptized here over the past four years has been baptized in Jesus name.

Yeah mine too. It's not like there is this huge anti-baptism movement...

Hey that is great about speaking the name at the baptisms. It would be awesome if this caught on with all churches.

[Hoovie]

While I would not discount all baptisms not done the way we understand the New Testament church to have baptised, I would teach what I believe and encourage all who hear to be baptised in water as adults, calling on the name of Jesus.

[LUKE2447]

Actually, unless I missed something, the passage you refer to in Romans does not mention the blood of Christ. HOwever, here is a scripture that applies the blood at the point of faith in Christ:

Romans 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

The following scriptures do not contain the words "faith" and "blood" in the same sentence, but in context the subject is faith in Christ: Romans 5:9, Hebrews 9:14, 1 John 1:7, Revelation 1:5.

I looked diligently but I didn't find any scripture that directly linked baptism and the application of the blood.

again read what I said. death is synonmous with blood. Without the shedding of blood (which is talking about sacrificial death) there is no remission of sins. Thus when it is said to be united with the death of Christ it is referencing the shedding of blood which is to be united with him and his saving act which is his death/blood/sacrifice. THus Romans 6 is clearly a reference to the blood/act/sacrifice/death of Christ be united or applied to us.

watch the debate with the COC on baptism on the Ankerberg show on youtube and even the people that believe baptism is non essential say they are the same and synonymous uses. THus baptism is clearly identified as the point of the blood/death of Christ be united.

[Adino]

If the blood is already applied, then what does faith do?Faith brings the justification of life. God grants justification and life to those who believe in the historic finished sin remission of the Cross (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:18; Acts 13:39).

The heart which does not rest in faith that sin was historically dealt with by God through Christ at Calvary remains in condemnation (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9). Those who do not believe remain condemned, not because of those sins already remitted on the Cross, but because they've rejected Christ.

Man either:

1) Passes into a state of justification and spiritual LIFE by accepting with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to seal that God is true.... (John 3:33; 1John 5:13)

OR...

2) Man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation. (1John 5:10-12; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

The historic application of Christ's shed blood to those sins imputed to him at Calvary resulted in the remission of those sins PRIOR to the resurrection. Christ's blood was applied to our sin (imputed to Christ) and accepted by God PRIOR to the resurrection, else Christ would not have been raised.

If we say the blood of Christ needs to be applied to our sins AGAIN, we are saying the work of the Cross was inadequate and ineffective. If we say the blood needs to be applied today..... we do not have faith in the finished work of the Cross.

Do you believe the blood of Christ, already applied to our sins BEFORE the resurrection, needs to be applied to our sins again today?

[LUKE2447]

Yeah mine too. It's not like there is this huge anti-baptism movement...

Hey that is great about speaking the name at the baptisms. It would be awesome if this caught on with all churches.

LOL, he doesn't even say in the name of Jesus. He says that at F,S,HS and the "into" on JEsus name. Sorry but it's a hack job on the Word!

[Adino]

Anyone,

Does the blood of Christ, already applied to our sins BEFORE the resurrection, need to be applied to our sins again today?

[Hoovie]

Anyone,

Does the blood of Christ, already applied to our sins BEFORE the resurrection, need to be applied to our sins again today?

Point made Adino, and it's a good one. It is our acceptance of that fact, through faith that we "do" - at conversion, then publicize at baptism.

[Hoovie]

LOL, he doesn't even say in the name of Jesus. He says that at F,S,HS and the "into" on JEsus name. Sorry but it's a hack job on the Word!

Say what? I took what he said at face value.

..."everyone who has been baptized here over the past four years has been baptized in Jesus name"...

I believed in the context of the thread and above statement, that he does speak the name "Jesus" at baptism.

Do you know something I do not??

[Falla39]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fXme0bmCeU&feature=related

Why anyone would not want to say the NAME is a mystery to me!

We choose to take the NAME that is above every name. The only NAME
under heaven whereby we MUST be SAVED.

GOD HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and gave Him A (The) NAME that is ABOVE
EVERY NAME, that at The NAME of JESUS, every knee should bow and
every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to the GLORY
of GOD THE FATHER!

You don't have a legal contract or can't even go to the bank without
a NAME! Titles will not get the results you desire. Why would we expect
to get the results HE DESIRES by resisting THE NAME! I believe our re-
action to THE Name in water baptism, tells the story.

John 3:17,18
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Mark13:13
13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Falla39

[LUKE2447]

nm

[LUKE2447]

Say what? I took what he said at face value.

..."everyone who has been baptized here over the past four years has been baptized in Jesus name"...

I believed in the context of the thread and above statement, that he does speak the name "Jesus" at baptism.

Do you know something I do not??


His own comments!

To answer the questions:
- Yes I still believe in the oneness. My statement on this issue is that There is but one God and He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ." (Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

There is a difference between baptizing "in the name of Jesus" and baptizing while mentioning his name. Will it matter in the end? Only God will be the judge but from a technical point "in the name of" means something and he only uses that with F,S,HS.

[freeatlast]

Anyone,

Does the blood of Christ, already applied to our sins BEFORE the resurrection, need to be applied to our sins again today?

My first thought is that it, the blood, WAS applied ONCE and for ALL.

[Hoovie]

His own comments!

To answer the questions:
- Yes I still believe in the oneness. My statement on this issue is that There is but one God and He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ." (Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

There is a difference between baptizing "in the name of Jesus" and baptizing while mentioning his name. Will it matter in the end? Only God will be the judge but from a technical point "in the name of" means something and he only uses that with F,S,HS.

I really think we are quibbling now.

With all due respect to the scriptures we love, there is no exact baptismal formula given.

[Adino]

My first thought is that it, the blood, WAS applied ONCE and for ALL.I would certainly agree. YET, it seems there are some who wish to teach a doctrine which demands a second application of Christ's blood. This would deem the blood's application at Calvary inadequate.

Why would someone teach such a thing? :smack

If the resurrection declared the remission of those sins imputed to Christ as having been accomplished (and it did - else Christ would not have been raised), it also declared the effective historic application of Christ's shed blood to those sins. It declared God's acceptance of the sacrifice as sufficient.

To teach baptismal sin remission is to teach an inadequate Cross. :foottap

[LUKE2447]

I really think we are quibbling now.

With all due respect to the scriptures we love, there is no exact baptismal formula given.

baptism is done IN the authority of Jesus. I find it funny you call it quibbling... At what point is quibbling.... words mean nothing I guess. Also by who's definition is quibbling. I see the formula all throughout the NT. It's not just baptism but healing is the same thing and it shows consistency of application was same as them saying they baptized in the name of Jesus. They called on his authority/sacrifice by his name. How was he baptized into Jesus? By who's authority/name? F,S,HS! Sorry if you can't get it and the reason it's nothing but a hack job of what the word says.

[LUKE2447]

I would certainly agree. YET, it seems there are some who wish to teach a doctrine which demands a second application of Christ's blood. This would deem the blood's application at Calvary inadequate.

Why would someone teach such a thing? :smack

If the resurrection declared the remission of those sins imputed to Christ as having been accomplished (and it did - else Christ would not have been raised), it also declared the effective historic application of Christ's shed blood to those sins. It declared God's acceptance of the sacrifice as sufficient.

To teach baptismal sin remission is to teach an inadequate Cross. :foottap


say something?

[Adino]

say something?Please, share your thoughts.

[Adino]

Point made Adino, and it's a good one. It is our acceptance of that fact, through faith that we "do" - at conversion, then publicize at baptism.Right - our heart of faith rests in the historic reality of the sin remission accomplished on the Cross by the historic application Christ's shed blood.

The resurrection declared the FINISHED sin remitting work of the blood of Christ at Calvary.

Good to see you again, Stephen. I've not posted much in the past year.

[Adino]

Steve Epley posted:
"YES a man will be condemned though his sins were forgiven at Calvary ...... I contend though YOU have faith in the slain Lamb historically YOU MUST apply the blood as PRESCRIBED!"
I replied:
"Steve, I think you have a major concern here.

Why must WE apply the blood which the resurrection proves has already been applied and accepted by God?

Our sin was Christ's and it was removed BEFORE the resurrection, thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied in the eyes of God (else Christ would not have been raised).

Do you believe the blood of Christ must be applied twice? Once before the resurrection and then again when we are baptized?

AND...

What is the blood being applied to in baptism? You've already conceded that our sins were remitted before the resurrection. If they are historically removed, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

Your position seems inconsistent. Please clarify."Rev. Epley, your thoughts..... ???